Report: DeLay Agreed With Withholding Special Treatment for Injured Father
The Associated Press
Published: Mar 27, 2005
LOS ANGELES (AP) - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has helped lead a congressional effort to keep Terri Schiavo alive, joined members of his own family nearly 17 years ago in allowing doctors not to take extraordinary measures to extend his father's life, a newspaper reported Sunday.
DeLay had just been re-elected to his third term in Congress in 1988 when his father, Charles DeLay, was severely injured in an accident. As the elder DeLay's vital organs began failing, the family chose not to connect him to a dialysis machine or take other measures to prolong his life, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday, citing court documents, medical records and interviews with family members.
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
"Tom went along" with the family's decision, she said.
She called comparisons between her husband's case and that of Schiavo "interesting" but said she agrees with her son that Schiavo might have a chance of recovering if her feeding tube were reinserted.
DeLay helped push through Congress a special law allowing Terri Schiavo's parents to ask federal courts to order their brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted after state courts allowed it to be removed. However, after hearing their pleas, federal judges refused to intervene.
The Texas Republican also accused Schiavo's husband and the courts of "an act of barbarism" against Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.
The congressman declined to be interviewed about his father's case, but a press aide said it was "entirely different than Terri Schiavo's."
"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said DeLay spokesman Dan Allen.
Charles DeLay, 65, and his brother and their wives were trying out a tram the brothers had built to carry their families up and down a slope from their Texas home to the shore of a lake when the tram jumped the tracks on Nov. 17, 1988.
Charles DeLay was pitched headfirst into a tree. Hospital admission records showed he suffered multiple injuries, including a brain hemorrhage.
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay, who suffered broken bones in the crash.
Like Schiavo, Charles DeLay had no living will, but he had reportedly expressed to others his wish not to be kept alive by artificial means.
He died on Dec. 14, 1988. He had not shown any signs of being conscious, except that his pulse rate would rise slightly when younger son Randall entered the room, Maxine DeLay said.
"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said of her husband.
Now how's that for demockeracy? These are the people that are willing to legislate on YOUR behalf, each and every fuckin' one of ya.
Getting ready to turn on, tune in and drop out,
-AngryWoofDog
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Frist asked to atone for killing cats
I have no words for how horrible this is.... Bill, I always knew you were an asshole fuckwad, but this really takes the fucking cake. What an awful, awful human being you are. I hope large, large cats eat your torpid eviscera one day while you are 'hunting' in Africa.
By Dee Ann Divis
Science and Technology Editor
Published 12/31/2002 8:13 PM
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is being asked by an animal advocacy group to support legislation for better animal treatment to make up for fraudulently adopting cats from animal shelters then experimenting on and killing them while he was a medical student.
A Dec. 31 letter from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Frist to make amends by pressing for reforms that would replace old-style tests where animals are subjected to painful and sometimes deadly procedures with newer, more humane approaches. They also requested that he help fund research to find non-animal alternatives.
Frist acknowledged in a 1989 book that he routinely killed cats while an ambitious medical student at Harvard Medical School in the 1970s. His office said it had no record on how many cats died. Frist disclosed that he went to animal shelters and pretended to adopt the cats, telling shelter personnel he intended to keep them as pets. Instead he used them to sharpen his surgical skills, killing them in the process.
The newly elected leader of the Senate Republicans revealed the practice in his book "Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine."
"It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do," Frist wrote, in a passage quoted by The Boston Globe. On Tuesday, Frist's press aide, Nick Smith, told United Press International that "Senator Frist denounces the activities that he did while he was in medical school -- as he has done before."
It is not clear if Frist's actions were illegal. Many states ban shelters from knowingly letting their animals be taken for such purposes.
Massachusetts put such a ban in place in 1983. Frist was a student in the Boston area from 1974 to 1978. A total of 14 states have passed such laws. Four states -- Iowa, Minnesota, Utah and Oklahoma -- still have laws that allow labs to demand the release of animals for experimental use.
But such regulations, called pound seizure laws, only govern the actions of the shelters.
"The pound seizure law probably would not apply there because the shelter did not intentionally sell the animal to him for this purpose," said Debora Bresch, a lawyer and a lobbyist for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
"They thought they were adopting the animal out to him," said Bresch. "What he did was fraudulent and probably was illegal."
"It would probably would be considered cruel back even then," added Stephen Musso, senior vice president and chief of operations of ASPCA.
Though Musso said he personally had not heard about the Frist incident, he told UPI, "We wouldn't want to see anybody taking an animal out of an animal shelter and doing anything with it -- first of all that would be harmful; second of all, different than the intentions that they gave to the people at that shelter or humane organization."
Attitudes toward animal experimentation have shifted, said Gary Patronek, director of the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy in North Grafton, Mass.
"The fact that laws have passed prohibiting the practice of pound seizure in 14 states is evidence of the fact that society's attitudes have changed," Patronek told UPI. "The laws reflect the attitudes. If there isn't a broad social consensus about something, then typically the laws don't change."
The demographics have changed also. By the end of 2000, a total of 34 percent of American households had at least one cat -- a sharp rise of 8 percent in only two years. The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association also said in their 2001-2002 National Pet Owner Survey that 39 percent of all U.S. households owned at least one dog in 2000, about the same percentage as in 1998.
Though Frist's practice has been known for 11 years, the matter appears to be gathering new attention since his election as Senate majority leader. E-mail with copies of news articles mentioning the incident are bouncing around the Internet, said Bresch.
One Frist supporter said the senator's opponents are fueling the interest in the issue.
"What is happening here is that people are doing profiles of the senator, and they are desperate to find something wrong with him and to come up with something bad in his past," he pointed out.
Whether Frist will come to the aid of animal legislative causes remains to be seen. His spokesman said they had not seen the PETA letter and therefore would not comment on it.
PETA, normally more combative and high-profile, took a somewhat restrained tone in its letter. There was no mistaking PETA's opinion, however, as the organization asked Frist to make an effort on the animals' behalf.
"There could be no better way of making some small amends to those animals whose trust you betrayed when you took them from shelters," the letter said.
(With reporting by Nicholas M. Horrock in Washington)
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
By Dee Ann Divis
Science and Technology Editor
Published 12/31/2002 8:13 PM
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is being asked by an animal advocacy group to support legislation for better animal treatment to make up for fraudulently adopting cats from animal shelters then experimenting on and killing them while he was a medical student.
A Dec. 31 letter from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Frist to make amends by pressing for reforms that would replace old-style tests where animals are subjected to painful and sometimes deadly procedures with newer, more humane approaches. They also requested that he help fund research to find non-animal alternatives.
Frist acknowledged in a 1989 book that he routinely killed cats while an ambitious medical student at Harvard Medical School in the 1970s. His office said it had no record on how many cats died. Frist disclosed that he went to animal shelters and pretended to adopt the cats, telling shelter personnel he intended to keep them as pets. Instead he used them to sharpen his surgical skills, killing them in the process.
The newly elected leader of the Senate Republicans revealed the practice in his book "Transplant: A Heart Surgeon's Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine."
"It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do," Frist wrote, in a passage quoted by The Boston Globe. On Tuesday, Frist's press aide, Nick Smith, told United Press International that "Senator Frist denounces the activities that he did while he was in medical school -- as he has done before."
It is not clear if Frist's actions were illegal. Many states ban shelters from knowingly letting their animals be taken for such purposes.
Massachusetts put such a ban in place in 1983. Frist was a student in the Boston area from 1974 to 1978. A total of 14 states have passed such laws. Four states -- Iowa, Minnesota, Utah and Oklahoma -- still have laws that allow labs to demand the release of animals for experimental use.
But such regulations, called pound seizure laws, only govern the actions of the shelters.
"The pound seizure law probably would not apply there because the shelter did not intentionally sell the animal to him for this purpose," said Debora Bresch, a lawyer and a lobbyist for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
"They thought they were adopting the animal out to him," said Bresch. "What he did was fraudulent and probably was illegal."
"It would probably would be considered cruel back even then," added Stephen Musso, senior vice president and chief of operations of ASPCA.
Though Musso said he personally had not heard about the Frist incident, he told UPI, "We wouldn't want to see anybody taking an animal out of an animal shelter and doing anything with it -- first of all that would be harmful; second of all, different than the intentions that they gave to the people at that shelter or humane organization."
Attitudes toward animal experimentation have shifted, said Gary Patronek, director of the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy in North Grafton, Mass.
"The fact that laws have passed prohibiting the practice of pound seizure in 14 states is evidence of the fact that society's attitudes have changed," Patronek told UPI. "The laws reflect the attitudes. If there isn't a broad social consensus about something, then typically the laws don't change."
The demographics have changed also. By the end of 2000, a total of 34 percent of American households had at least one cat -- a sharp rise of 8 percent in only two years. The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association also said in their 2001-2002 National Pet Owner Survey that 39 percent of all U.S. households owned at least one dog in 2000, about the same percentage as in 1998.
Though Frist's practice has been known for 11 years, the matter appears to be gathering new attention since his election as Senate majority leader. E-mail with copies of news articles mentioning the incident are bouncing around the Internet, said Bresch.
One Frist supporter said the senator's opponents are fueling the interest in the issue.
"What is happening here is that people are doing profiles of the senator, and they are desperate to find something wrong with him and to come up with something bad in his past," he pointed out.
Whether Frist will come to the aid of animal legislative causes remains to be seen. His spokesman said they had not seen the PETA letter and therefore would not comment on it.
PETA, normally more combative and high-profile, took a somewhat restrained tone in its letter. There was no mistaking PETA's opinion, however, as the organization asked Frist to make an effort on the animals' behalf.
"There could be no better way of making some small amends to those animals whose trust you betrayed when you took them from shelters," the letter said.
(With reporting by Nicholas M. Horrock in Washington)
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
US Military is funding a new weapon that delivers excruciating pain from 2 km.
By David Hambling
Republished from New Scientist
The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.
“I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research,” says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. “Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown.”
The research came to light in documents unearthed by the Sunshine Project, an organisation based in Texas and in Hamburg, Germany, that exposes biological weapons research. The papers were released under the US’s Freedom of Information Act.
One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, is entitled “Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas”.
It concerns so-called Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs), which fire a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid, like a person (New Scientist print edition, 12 October 2002). The weapon, destined for use in 2007, could literally knock rioters off their feet.
Pain trigger
According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced “pain and temporary paralysis” in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells.
The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimise this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.
The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for “optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation” – in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.
Long-term risk
New Scientist contacted two researchers working on the project. Martin Richardson, a laser expert at the University of Central Florida, US, refused to comment. Brian Cooper, an expert in dental pain at the University of Florida, distanced himself from the work, saying “I don’t have anything interesting to convey. I was just providing some background for the group.” His name appears on a public list of the university’s research projects next to the $500,000-plus grant.
John Wood of University College London, UK, an expert in how the brain perceives pain, says the researchers involved in the project should face censure. “It could be used for torture,” he says, “the [researchers] must be aware of this.”
Amanda Williams, a clinical psychologist at University College London, fears that victims risk long-term harm. “Persistent pain can result from a range of supposedly non-destructive stimuli which nevertheless change the functioning of the nervous system,” she says. She is concerned that studies of cultured cells will fall short of demonstrating a safe level for a plasma burst. “They cannot tell us about the pain and psychological consequences of such a painful experience.”
Republished from New Scientist
The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.
“I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research,” says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. “Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown.”
The research came to light in documents unearthed by the Sunshine Project, an organisation based in Texas and in Hamburg, Germany, that exposes biological weapons research. The papers were released under the US’s Freedom of Information Act.
One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, is entitled “Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas”.
It concerns so-called Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs), which fire a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid, like a person (New Scientist print edition, 12 October 2002). The weapon, destined for use in 2007, could literally knock rioters off their feet.
Pain trigger
According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced “pain and temporary paralysis” in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells.
The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimise this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.
The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for “optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation” – in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.
Long-term risk
New Scientist contacted two researchers working on the project. Martin Richardson, a laser expert at the University of Central Florida, US, refused to comment. Brian Cooper, an expert in dental pain at the University of Florida, distanced himself from the work, saying “I don’t have anything interesting to convey. I was just providing some background for the group.” His name appears on a public list of the university’s research projects next to the $500,000-plus grant.
John Wood of University College London, UK, an expert in how the brain perceives pain, says the researchers involved in the project should face censure. “It could be used for torture,” he says, “the [researchers] must be aware of this.”
Amanda Williams, a clinical psychologist at University College London, fears that victims risk long-term harm. “Persistent pain can result from a range of supposedly non-destructive stimuli which nevertheless change the functioning of the nervous system,” she says. She is concerned that studies of cultured cells will fall short of demonstrating a safe level for a plasma burst. “They cannot tell us about the pain and psychological consequences of such a painful experience.”
The 23rd Sigh
A Prayer for the Dying in amerika....
Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war,
I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.
Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war,
I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
