NewsTue Aug 8, 2006 - 12:15 pm EST
Doctors Dehydrated My Husband To Death: U.K. Widow
By John Jalsevac
NORFOLK, U.K., August 8, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At the same time that the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital is being investigated for allegedly starving and dehydrating a woman to death in 2003, the wife of a former patient treated on the same ward is calling for another investigation into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of her husband.
Kate Speed claims that although her husband’s death certificate states that he died from pneumonia, that in fact he died because of a hospital-ordered dehydration, an ultimately fatal measure that neither she nor her husband approved.
“The whole of my husband’s stay in hospital was a nightmare,” Kate Speed said, according to the Times Online. “They put bronchopneumonia on the death certificate, but I believe his death was from the effects of dehydration.”
The hospital’s Kimberly ward is already under investigation by Norwich coroner William Armstrong after the death a Mrs. Olive Nockels who died at the hospital in 2003 and whose family alleges that she was dehydrated to death. According to the Times Online, physician David Maisley testified last month at the inquest into Mrs. Nockel’s death that he witnessed people die of dehydration at the hospital “all the time—two or three times a week.”
Olive Nockel’s grandson, Chris West, testified at the inquest that, “I said I wouldn’t treat my dog like that and [Dr Maisey] said it was easier for vets because they had alternative means and can ‘put animals to sleep’.”
Harold Speed, a grandfather of four and former music teacher, was admitted to the hospital in October of 2004 after suffering a heart attack. Shortly thereafter a “nil by mouth” order was instituted. This order was lifted once, after complaints by Mrs. Speed, only to be reversed once again at a later date.
Speed’s wife relates: “I saw my husband deteriorate and I have no understanding of how this was allowed to happen. I questioned hospital staff but they told me an intravenous drip would have been too painful,” she said.
“I saw my husband the day before he died. He had not been physically examined that day; his records showed he was last seen 24 hours before he died.
“My husband had been in the hospital many times before and I have nothing but praise for staff there, but the ethos in Kimberly ward is terrible and I do not believe he died of natural causes.”Â
Mrs. Speed says that leading up to his death Harold Speed demonstrated all the classic signs of dehydration. “His eyes were dry, sore, flat and sunken. I tried to moisten his mouth…The doctor said he was very dry and picked up the flesh from his neck. It was like picking up a sheet. His veins were flat and there was an absence of mucous.”
“We trusted, and he trusted,” says Mrs. Speed, “that the hospital would treat him well, instead of which there was a catalogue of error and apathy that led to his death, unless of course, there had been a decision, which I had no share in, that his life should no longer be preserved.”
So far hospital officials and physicians have denied that Speed died on account of dehydration. Dr Iain Brooksby, medical director, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital denied Kate Speed’s accusations saying, “Clinical examination at the time and the objective evidence of blood tests demonstrated that the late Mr Speed was definitely not dehydrated at the time of his death in November 2004,” according toÂthe Norwich Evening News 24.Â
“He was satisfactorily hydrated and was receiving fluids and antibiotics for a chest infection when he died. We have explained to Mrs Speed that there was no evidence that dehydration contributed to his death and he died of bronchopneumonia and vascular disease.”
Mrs. Speed, however, has been offered fiscal compensation for her husband’s death, compensation which she declined fearing that if sheÂaccepted the money the hospital would use it as leverage to brush the issue aside. “They asked me for a figure but I was afraid it was tactical and that they would then not have to answer questions. Just pay, and I would never know the truth of what happened,” she said.
Cases similar to Harold Speed’s are cropping up with increasing frequency. Last week LifeSiteNews.com reported on the case of the father of Wall Street journalist Pamela Winnick. Winnick related that doctors continually pestered her and her family into quietly “letting” her father go. Her father recovered shortly thereafter.
Along the same lines, in June of this year a prominent British bioethicist was quoted as saying that it is time to “regulate” the already existing practice of “involuntary euthanasia”. Pro-life advocates have pointed out from the beginning that the term “involuntary euthanasia” is simply a medical euphemism for murder.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Doctors Kept Asking To “Let” My Father Die: Wall Street Journalist
Non-Voluntary Euthanasia – Next Logical Step for Britain says Prominent Ethicist
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.