Oakland, Calif., Jul 14, 2016 / 03:24 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- You can’t put a price on most things in life. But you can, apparently, put a price on death - $2,000. That’s what Dr. Lonny Shavelson is charging patients at his brand-new physician-assisted suicide clinic in Berkeley, California. Last month, California became the fifth and most populous state to adopt a law legalizing physician-assisted suicide. The state's End of Life Option Act went into effect June 9. Shavelson, who had retired from practicing medicine, was drawn back after Calif. Governor Jerry Brown signed the End of Life Option Act last year. Shavelson recently opened the state’s first End of Life Options clinic in the Bay Area, where he will consult with and provide lethal prescriptions for patients who request them – and who may not be given the prescription by other doctors who refuse to write such prescriptions. Under the California law, two doctors must agree that a mentally competent patient has six months or fewer to live. The patient then agrees in writing to administer the lethal prescription themselves. Currently, the law does not mandate doctors to provide lethal prescriptions if they choose not to do so. Shavelson’s sudden reappearance in medicine and his past advocacy for assisted suicide has left many critics sceptical of his motivations. “I think that what we have said about assisted suicide is predictably happening, which is [that] some individuals in the healthcare industry will take advantage (of these laws) and see this as a business opportunity, and take advantage of people and families at their most vulnerable time,” Tim Rosales, political director for the Patients Rights Action Fund, told CNA. One of Shavelson’s most vocal critics is Wesley Smith, a lawyer, author, and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. In the '90s, Shavelson wrote a book called A Chosen Death, in which he chronicles the deaths of five people who had asked for assisted suicide. Shavelson was present for each person’s death. In the book, Shavelson recounts how he watched the murder of a man who is suffocated to death, and how he did nothing to stop it. Smith takes Shavelson to task in his own book Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die. In it, Smith writes of Shavelson: “The right, proper, ethical, and humane thing for Shavelson to do as he watched Sarah asphyxiate Gene would have been to knock Sarah off the helpless man and then quickly dial 911 for an ambulance and the police. But Shavelson did not do anything…as he watched the Sarah-Gene tableau, just before the old man tried to rip the bag off his face…” Critics of legalized assisted suicide argue that it overwhelmingly targets the poor, elderly and disabled, that it creates a slippery slope to doctor-enforced euthanasias, and that there can never be enough safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Although the California law only applies to the mentally competent and terminally ill, a terminal diagnosis can be uncertain, with many people living well beyond their initial prognosis. Countries such as the Netherlands, where assisted suicide and euthanasia have been legal since 2002, have recently witnessed the erosion of such safeguards as mental competence. Earlier this year, a young woman in her 20s was euthanized in the country because doctors had determined her mental health condition was “insufferable.” Rosales said he hopes that states considering legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia will find Shavelson’s practice troubling. “It’s targeting folks and seeing this as something that is profitable or a business venture, and that certainly is troubling, and I think instructive for states that are considering similar laws.” Read more

Washington D.C., Jul 14, 2016 / 09:35 am (CNA).- In the wake of last week’s horrific deaths of Dallas police officers Brent Thompson, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, and Patrick Zamarripa, there was a loud national cry lamenting the loss of life and demanding that the violence against police “must stop.” I wholeheartedly share these sentiments, especially since I have family members who serve in law enforcement. However I wonder why some do not lament the tragic loss of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile too? As Catholics, we believe Alton and Philando are made in the image and likeness of God and are worthy of inestimable dignity and respect. Why then the comparable silence with regard to their lives and deaths? I believe that the national conversation misses the point: nothing about a person negates who they are and whose they are. They are made in the image and likeness of God. By trivializing, minimizing, and ultimately dehumanizing our brothers and sisters to rationalize or even justify their deaths (a common tactic among abortion advocates, by the way), we fall into a moral trap and may cause scandal. Alton and Philando are not different in this regard. We must, as Catholics, assert our moral view at these moments even when they may be difficult and uncomfortable. Indeed Imago Dei must be the cornerstone in our national conversations about race, violence, crime, and lethal force. Otherwise we cannot possibly address, let alone resolve, these societal problems. Without our engagement, the current division and hostilities worsen. For example, why are we silent in examining the morality of lethal or excessive force? Far too often, those asking this question are condemned as anti-police. However, we cannot let fear of these labels deter us from this discussion. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that one actively resists arrest: does the response warrant lethal force? Were non-lethal means available? If one commits an offense during his or her interaction with law enforcement officers, does the offense justify lethal force? These are legitimate questions arising from the understanding of our faith as it relates to the life and dignity of the human person and its implications for the common good. These are the very questions that should be asked about Alton and Philando. I sincerely hope that we will continue to pray and mourn for the fallen police officers and their families, but also for Alton and Philando and their families. They deserve a responsible discussion about the morality of using lethal force in a just manner in our society. Recalling their dignity as children of God and asking questions about the circumstances of their death is a hallmark of our Catholic faith and American sensibilities. Our silence in these matters must stop too.  Gloria Purvis, a Cornell University graduate, has served on the National Black Catholic Congress' Leadership Commission on Social Justice and was an Advisory Board Member on the Maryland Catholic Conference's Respect for Life Department.She is a Board Member for the Northwest Pregnancy Center and Maternity Home in Washington, D.C.  She is the creator and host of the EWTN series, Authentically Free at Last, and also the host of Morning Glory which airs 7 to 8 am M - Fri on EWTN Global Catholic Radio.Follow her on Twitter at @gloria_purvis   Read more

Washington D.C., Jul 14, 2016 / 09:35 am (CNA).- In the wake of last week’s horrific deaths of Dallas police officers Brent Thompson, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, and Patrick Zamarripa, there was a loud national cry lamenting the loss of life and demanding that the violence against police “must stop.” I wholeheartedly share these sentiments, especially since I have family members who serve in law enforcement. However I wonder why some do not lament the tragic loss of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile too? As Catholics, we believe Alton and Philando are made in the image and likeness of God and are worthy of inestimable dignity and respect. Why then the comparable silence with regard to their lives and deaths? I believe that the national conversation misses the point: nothing about a person negates who they are and whose they are. They are made in the image and likeness of God. By trivializing, minimizing, and ultimately dehumanizing our brothers and sisters to rationalize or even justify their deaths (a common tactic among abortion advocates, by the way), we fall into a moral trap and may cause scandal. Alton and Philando are not different in this regard. We must, as Catholics, assert our moral view at these moments even when they may be difficult and uncomfortable. Indeed Imago Dei must be the cornerstone in our national conversations about race, violence, crime, and lethal force. Otherwise we cannot possibly address, let alone resolve, these societal problems. Without our engagement, the current division and hostilities worsen. For example, why are we silent in examining the morality of lethal or excessive force? Far too often, those asking this question are condemned as anti-police. However, we cannot let fear of these labels deter us from this discussion. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that one actively resists arrest: does the response warrant lethal force? Were non-lethal means available? If one commits an offense during his or her interaction with law enforcement officers, does the offense justify lethal force? These are legitimate questions arising from the understanding of our faith as it relates to the life and dignity of the human person and its implications for the common good. These are the very questions that should be asked about Alton and Philando. I sincerely hope that we will continue to pray and mourn for the fallen police officers and their families, but also for Alton and Philando and their families. They deserve a responsible discussion about the morality of using lethal force in a just manner in our society. Recalling their dignity as children of God and asking questions about the circumstances of their death is a hallmark of our Catholic faith and American sensibilities. Our silence in these matters must stop too.  Gloria Purvis, a Cornell University graduate, has served on the National Black Catholic Congress' Leadership Commission on Social Justice and was an Advisory Board Member on the Maryland Catholic Conference's Respect for Life Department.She is a Board Member for the Northwest Pregnancy Center and Maternity Home in Washington, D.C.  She is the creator and host of the EWTN series, Authentically Free at Last, and also the host of Morning Glory which airs 7 to 8 am M - Fri on EWTN Global Catholic Radio.Follow her on Twitter at @gloria_purvis   Read more

Washington D.C., Jul 14, 2016 / 12:44 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Two leading U.S. bishops have spoken out in favor of a proposed law which would ensure federal religious freedom protections to individuals and faith-based organizations who disagree with same-sex marriage. In a joint statement released Tuesday, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco and Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore voiced support for the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The legislation “is a modest but important step in ensuring conscience protection to faith-based organizations and people of all faiths and of no faith who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” they said. Archbishop Cordileone chairs the U.S. bishops’ committee on the promotion and defense of marriage, while Archbishop Lori heads the committee on religious liberty. The First Amendment Defense Act was introduced by Representative Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in response to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling last year. The proposed law would protect individuals and organizations from being penalized for their views on marriage. The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling last June federally validated marriage licenses between same-sex couples and has since been a source of concern for individuals, small businesses and faith-based organizations who could lose their tax-exempt status or licenses for upholding their beliefs on traditional marriage. Over the past year, various small business owners have worried about losing their businesses, and other faith-based organizations are wondering if their tax-exempt statuses are in jeopardy. “The increasing intolerance toward religious belief and belief in the conjugal meaning of marriage makes these protections essential for continuing faith-based charitable work, which supports the common good of our society,” the bishops’ statement said. “Faith-based agencies and schools should not lose their licenses or accreditation simply because they hold reasonable views on marriage that differ from the federal government's view.” Although controversy has swirled around the First Amendment Defense Act as an anti-LGBT provision, both Archbishop Cordileone and Archbishop Lori stated that the definition of marriage “has nothing to do with disrespect for others, nor does it depend on religious belief.” “Rather, it is based on truths about the human person that are understandable by reason,” the archbishops wrote, stating that marriage between one man and one woman is “foundational to the common good.” Archbishop Cordileone and Archbishop Lori said that the Catholic Church will continue to be a beacon of moral conviction and stand behind the right to exercise religious beliefs without fear. “We are pleased to support the First Amendment Defense Act, and we urge Congress to pass this important legislation.”   Read more