There it is. We're recording. It's great to get started. Thank you, Father, for the opportunity tonight to dig into your word and its principles, its application. And tonight, as we deal with medical ethics, we might be wiser ourselves and we might be able to help those who are around us think through the issues and make decisions that be glorifying to you in Jesus' name. Amen. All right, we're going to start off with just some simple things. What are the differences or similarities between each of the following? So legal execution, what is it? It's similar to death in war. Similar to, in some ways, though a little different. In death and war, you don't necessarily get a trial. In fact, you almost never get a trial. There's just the wrong place, the wrong time to catch a bullet or something. This is like death row or murder. Well, there's, yeah, there's difference. That's why I wanted to ask the question. Legal execution, there's been a violation of law, right? And that goes back to Jonathan Stein. If man sheds blood, he is to be executed. Do you remember why? There's intent. So there's intent, right? Well, why is there capital punishment for murder? There's an image of God, and so if you get into one of those debates about, you know, should we have capital punishment? It's a very simple thing. It's an attack on God whose man's made in his image. All the rest of the arguments for capital punishment are irrelevant compared to that. Yeah, there's a deterrence factor. There's all those things and people debate that constantly. But for us as Christians, it's a very simple thing. God said, made it his image. So murder of a human is an attack on the image of God. And that's why he said to execute. Ezekiel 3.18 is another one that deals with, execution of those who violated the laws of God, certain laws. Not all laws require execution, but there's quite a few in the Old Testament, they require execution. Romans 13.4, that's often used about government, but you've got to remember, he states there that the magistrate does not carry the sword in vain. And the sword isn't for you know, broad blading a guy on the rear or something, it's to use the sharp side. Okay, it's execution. The government has that right. So that's legal execution. You've done something, there's been a legal reason, there's, as you pointed out, there's difference between accidental homicide and murder, which I put through those in there too, but there's been murder committed, a capital punishment of some sort has been committed. And so legally, it has been determined you deserve to die. All right, what about death and war? I'm saying it's wrong place, wrong time. Try that again. Oh, wrong place. I didn't understand it. Wrong place, wrong time. Right. You really are charismatic. I can't say. Yes, you are. OK, well, crazy, just poke him with it. I appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. So death and war. There's a few. Let me give a couple of scriptures. Well, how about a whole book? Yeah. Joshua. OK. There's a lot of death in the war. And God has commanded that particular war. There's also defensive war. Right. You are attacked. You're allowed to defend yourself. And defending yourself, you may end up killing your enemy. But how about those, for the defensive, yes, I can understand that, but for the offensive, that is totally like the Germans, right? Well, that's why I use Joshua as an example. These were evil people that God wanted destroyed. Exodus 7.16 talks about Amalek. There'd be always war against Amalek because they're evil. So God will eliminate people on an offensive basis because they're evil. So remember we went through the just war theory? Yep. All right. So we're not going to be trying to be perpetrators under it, but if there's an evil being done, we might end up intervening. Okay, even though it's not our war, they're not, they didn't attack us, but they attacked her friend. So we're going to defend her friend. So I guess I was thinking about like in Germany, you're a Christian and then you're like a German at that time, right? I guess you have the responsibility to basically, you can basically say, I'm not gonna be part of this. Yeah, and you'd probably be executed. Right. Okay, or you're gonna have to flee the country. So that would be your options. You could flee the country if you see it's an unjust war. But death in war is just part of war. So that's handled differently. Is death in war murder? No, that's not murder. That's not what you're talking about. Well, murder has- If you're talking about under the guise of just fighting your enemies, then yes. But when you're talking about collateral damage, that's different. Collateral damage is not murder. It's World War II, you're a B-17 pilot, you're dropping bombs, you've aimed greatly, but there was a wind shear at an elevation you didn't know, and the bombs went off over, and it was sitting in a residential area that was a mile away from the train yards. Is that murder? And the reason it would not be is there's no intent to kill the civilians. similar to friendly fires, right? That'd be friendly fire. Now, where that might in war become murder is if your intent was to kill the civilian population under the just war theory, right? Yeah. Okay, remember I told you about General LeMay was the one who was responsible for the firebombing of the Japanese cities, which most people don't know more people died under the firebombings than under Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons. Many more people died. And LeMay himself said, if the US had lost the war, he would be on charge for war crimes. Because he recognized that that was unjust. That would be murder. He purposely intended to kill the civilian population and ordered it as prosecution of the war. So this is where what we talked about before about war theories. You have to work through these things to know, well, is this or is this not murder? Okay, are you doing something that is, you know, it's an unfortunate aspect of war, there is collateral damage, you said here, but, you know, are you, well, how about a current one, Israel? Israel works really hard trying to keep collateral damage down. But when you have your enemy who's shooting at you and is hiding in a civilian building, what's gonna end up happening? Now you didn't have to face that in a different part of the army, but if you had, would it be wrong to be shooting back at your enemy though they're using civilians as basically human shields? So this has been part of the whole problem with Moss and Hezbollah and a lot of these others. They don't value life, so they will purposely put themselves in a position where the forces against them, Israel, will have to end up killing civilians in order to get them. Same thing happened in Vietnam and other Asian wars, too. When that civilization doesn't value life, they will do things that will risk the civilian population. My brother-in-law told stories of, well, when he was drunk, to his wife. Oh, Maddie? Yeah, Maddie, of being on the front line and the enemy sending children with bombs strapped to them. Knowing that for the Americans, it would be demoralizing to shoot a child. And yet, what are you going to do? There's a bomb coming to you. You end up with PTSD like he did. So all these things become important. That's why we wanted to find these things out to begin with. So there's death and war. There's accidental homicide. So several passages that deal with that. Numbers 35. back a whole big hunk of the section number 3511 specifically with accidental and then 15 through 24 of determining if it wasn't accidental with the cities of refuge. And one of the examples given is you're with your friends and you're chopping wood and the head of the axe goes flying off, whacks your friend in the head and kills him. There's that murder. No, it'd be accidental homicide. In the Old Testament, a system was set up by which the person who had killed this other person could flee so that it'd be adjudicated and he wouldn't die. Otherwise, in that system, you'd have the danger of blood, usually relative, and he had the right to kill you. to avenge the blood of the person that just got killed. So instead it would be, he could flee to the city of refuge, be adjudicated, was it or was it not purposeful? Was it accidental? If it was accidental, he could live as long as he stayed in the city of refuge. So, and we have the same kind of laws. We have various degrees, even when it comes to murder, dealing with intent. Okay, some would be accidental, you know, it'd be manslaughter, unintended manslaughter. you had a traffic accident, the other person died. There was no intent to kill the person. Okay. So that'd be accidental homicide. That makes sense. Okay. What about murder? What makes that different? It's premeditated. There was a plan. Right. Okay. And that will difference between a murder of emotion. Um, in the heat of the moment, you did something you shouldn't have done, but murder itself has an intent. I intend to kill this person and I planned it out. So was that dead by passion or something like that? Or because you're jealous or something? Well, it's first and second and third degree, so. And then you get into manslaughter and other things. So they try to, you know, our laws are based on biblical principles, at least they used to be. And they try to work through these things of what is the level intent. First degree is intention, plan, execution of the plan, however you plan to do it. But there was an intent with it. Others may be intent in the passion of the moment. No, I mean, here's one I'd probably be guilty of if I'd walked in and someone was assaulting my wife. They may not make it out alive. Okay. I'm going to defend my wife. All right. I would be put up on murder charges. Yeah, this is New York. You're going to go through a lot before you can finally, okay, what were you trying to do? I was trying to defend my wife, but I'm still going to be put on there. There wasn't a plan on my part to find this guy. Now it'd be different. Let's say I found out after the fact, and I hunted the fellow down and laid in wait for him and killed him. What would that be? That'd be first-degree murder. What should I do? Bring the law in. I'll lie in wait for him and bring the authorities in. Okay. All right. Hey, what's the difference between murder and suicide? That's probably the best way to define suicide is self-murder. I have a plan. and I'm going to carry it out. So I am murdering myself. Okay. Um, that's a common question that people ask who have had people commit suicide is, is there a salvation moment in the suicide? Is there a salvation moment? Right. Or like, you know, maybe they've done something, but then that, that does eventually kill them. Maybe it takes a few minutes, but they say, here's the answer. You give them, you won't know to heaven. Right. Right. Because you have no idea, he was never able to express any change of mind on his heart. It's like the guy took poison, and after he took poison, he wasn't able to reverse it. And he realizes as he's dying is that I'm wrong, and he asks God to forgive him, and places trust in Christ. That's really pushing it. The only way you can answer that question is we'll have to ask God when we get to heaven. But that's not going to be something Most when people are going to do something that they're going to kill themselves, they're trying to figure out some way that's going to be fast, or at least painless. That's why carbon monoxide poisoning is common. Go into a garage, turn your car on, and wait till the carbon monoxide poisons you. This is why you should have an electric vehicle. You can't do that with. So that's the one advantage of working in by the mortgage. They, they actually been dealing with a lot of like burn victims, like complete burn victims and accidents. Isn't that always Tesla's really? Yeah. Says that says the batteries actually blow up and set the cars on fire and normal gasoline cars do not do that. But I don't. I have a stipulation in my rental properties for the garages that they may not store an electric vehicle in it. And you have to preface that. You have to preface that, yeah. You may not store an electric vehicle in your garage. All right, so suicide. Now, what's the difference between that and a quote unquote, or military expert, a suicide mission? When you go on that mission, you're not expecting to make it out alive or make it back. But your purpose was not to go kill yourself. Right. It wasn't to kill yourself. You understood that it was a low chance, low probability that you're going to make it through alive. Okay. So one is evil. The other actually is an act of valor. I value something more than my own life. And then this mission has to be done, even if it costs me my life, right? That's different. So by that law, you would not be considering the kamikaze pilots going on suicide missions? No, I would consider them going on a suicide mission. That would still be considered a suicide mission? They were not purposing trying to survive. If you're going on a suicide mission, we use that term because the probability is low. Right. The probability for a kamikaze pilot is zero. So it was seen as an act of valor on the part of the Japanese. It was seen as foolishness for the Americans, as you're purposely killing yourself to do this. And you purposely, and think about the purpose of what they're doing is to kill as many people as they can. So the Kamikaze really is not really any different than the suicide bombers who blow themselves up as terrorists. Which is actually what the Kamikaze was. The whole point of it was to cause terror. And it did. They were terrifying. We knew a man, he was on a picket ship off of Okinawa when he got hit. And he was crazy for years. or something. He wasn't crazy any longer, and he did a lot of... He made a lot of money in accounting and then bought houses and let pastors and missionaries come and stay in these houses really cheap. Because he figured that pastors go through really nasty things too, so they need a break. Was this the one who, like, when you went on vacation, you stayed? Yeah, this is back in the early 90s, early 2000s. We used him for two, three times. Yeah. His name was Hugh Hoffman. How's that scripture word is something about there's no greater love than to lay your life down for a brother. Yeah. But there's a difference again, suicide. We were defining it as it is self murder. I purposely intently killing myself. That's the intent. the suicide mission, the act of valor is not my intention to go kill myself. My intention is to carry out a particular mission, which even the particular thing is to save somebody else, to carry out a mission that will produce good. How about those people that kill themselves because they're into drugs, right? Then they don't have control of their selves anymore, right? they healed themselves. Yeah. That may not have been their intent, but their purpose was to try to escape, and that's the ultimate escape. All right. And that can slop over sometimes into euthanasia. Yeah, that would be more euthanasia than it would be suicide. Suicide is usually a planned out one after another. With assistance. With assistance. Okay, euthanasia, I don't even know what the word means. It actually means good death. And that's usually how it's trying to be framed, right? It's purposely killing someone else to avoid pain. So often referred to as mercy killing. That goes to the next question, euthanasia. It's good death. And what is it defined? Well, it's purposely killing somebody else by some relatively less painful method, then experience a greater pain that they're going to go through. or whatever they're going through, whether it's a medical problem, or they're badly injured, or they just don't want to live or something. So being that it's intentional, then it's murder for whoever's. That's why I wanted to find these terms to begin with. So this is someone coming alongside. I am personally killing this person. Yeah, but you have the consent of the person. No, it's different. You just have the consent of the person, but does that person have a right over his own life? Hence, is suicide evil? Yes, that's why we define that as self-murder. So euthanasia, even if you had the consent of the person, and I understand in a lot of euthanasia, the person has not given consent. When you have someone else, they think it's... So we'll get into some of that too. This is why medical ethics, you have to really think through some of these cases, but there are some foundational things that help us work through it. That's why I understand that suicide is purposely killing myself, that's self-murder. If I've had someone assist me do it, he's an accomplice to the murder, so he is a murderer. So a person carries out euthanasia, their motive may have been, quote unquote, merciful in their mind, as I will keep them from having to experience a lot of pain, whatever that pain may be. And it may not be physical pain. It could be emotional pain. They're just going through so much, this is terrible. And so, okay, they're better off dead. And so they want assisted. This would be one that's a common ethical dilemma for medical personnel, like nurses taking care of patients. So you can address that. Oh, there I had a lot of this incidents of that. And I was in charge of a 32 bed ward at the time. And it was med surge oncology. So there were people that were dying of cancer. And there were people that we had to resuscitate. And we had a lot of resuscitations all the time. And then the a good hospital, but they decided to put four ventilators on my floor. I said, we're not, I had worked with ventilators in ICU, but I said, we're not, we can't take four ventilators. We don't have, you're not staffing us for four ventilators. That's a one-on-one thing. And I had a patient, I had two significant issues. One was a patient who was alert and oriented and was only dependent on the ventilator. and not completely, but the family wanted her gone. They wanted her to die and the doctor complied. And so I did not take care of her that day. I wouldn't do it, but they, they took her off the ventilator and it took her over a day to die. Asphyxiation was awful, but she was alert and oriented and it was not her will to die. The other problem was they put these ventilators on my floor and a respiratory therapist came up and said, normally if you have what they call an ET tube, endotracheal tube in the mouth, that opens up the airway so you can breathe, but you shouldn't leave it there for longer than 10 days. because it erodes the trachea. It can erode it and you can get bleeding from the subclavian artery. So I got a patient transferred up to my floor. It wasn't, I don't even think it was my patient, but I had to go in and the respiratory therapy wanted me to move it from side to side. And I said, why? It's your job. You know, I have a lot of other things to do. I'm looking at the ventilator and everything, but she, she really wanted me to do it. And I said, okay, So I did that and it was, it was ghastly. The trachea was eroded, turned out the patient had been, they expected the patient, her to die. She didn't die. She lived and it had been in there three weeks. And instead of doing a trach, which is a permanent solution to that, they just kept thinking, well, she'll die, she'll die. And they put her on my floor to die of benign neglect. Benign neglect is what the respiratory therapist told me and why she didn't want to be the one. And we watched that patient bleed out through her mouth until there was no blood left. And she died right in front of me as soon as I did it. And I didn't know any of that. They kept me in the dark. And then when she told me benign neglect, I'm like, I really had a problem with it because they put all their patients up there that were on machines already, but either the families or the patients said it's enough and enough might've been 10 days, you know? And so that put us not knowing any of this at risk. I never would have done that. I would have insisted, I would have called the residents and said, get up here and put in a trach. I'm not gonna do this. So, but we were manipulated without information. So, and that was a long time ago, but this kind of thing happens all the time. And that's why we want to talk about medical ethics. This stuff is real. It's not a theory. This is how this happens. Almost every death is covered up. Unfortunately, a hospital is a business, though. It is a business. They become that. They become a business. And it's about the bottom line, not about patients anymore. And we'll talk a bit more about that. So what are some common reasons given for euthanasia? Yeah, terminal illness. You don't have to live through all the pain of that, right? This is easier. So the idea is supposedly it's a mercy. So supposedly for the benefit of the patient, okay, in their suffering, that's a common term. What's the more pragmatic reason as Diane has just explained? We need that room. Yeah. We need the bed. What type of insurance you have? Oh, no, you've got to go to the next one. You're on Medicaid? Mm-hmm. Okay. Going up to four Southeast. Reduced resources spent on a hopeless case, supposedly hopeless, or a case that no one wants to deal with, or you've lived too long, you're too old, we're not going to take care of you, that'd be financial resources, don't need to spend it on you, and so euthanasia becomes it. Not called that, but the same arguments and same act at the end. So even in those states that have not legalized euthanasia, it still happens. Okay, that's part of my point. So what the scriptures and biblical principles indirectly address euthanasia? five sets chances nine deals with the directly right okay you have killed somebody you've murdered them that's an attack on the image of god all right x is 2013 thou shalt not murder that's going to fit into there um who do those who does life belong to belongs to god x is 18 for all souls are mine they're in his hands um What did David do when the Amalekite euthanized King Saul? Because he murdered Saul. So those are the important things to think through. It's not hard for us as Christians, because we have very black and white laws that we have to obey. Murder is evil. Murder is wrong. Murder actually is a capital punishment, or deserves capital punishment. Suicide is self-murder. So sometimes it's helpful is you get all these cases, your emotions get wrapped into it, and you're like, oh, I wouldn't want to see the person suffer. You're like, I don't want to suck it through that. You have to think through, but whose life, who do you owe your life to? It's not mine, it's God's. So I have to leave that in his hands. And even though the person may think they're better off dead, is that true? If they're a Christian, well, actually it would be better off dead. I don't know about you, but to die is gay, to live is Christ, to die is gay. What about the non-Christian? Oh, no, you don't want that. You want to get that salvation first. How often do you do hear, though, is that, I want to see them out of their misery. Right. Their misery just began. Right. Their last return. Yeah. So we have principles that can apply and we can think through, even when the emotions are really high. And sometimes they are. You don't want to see your grandparent laying in a bed and suffering. They're in a lot of pain. All right, but can something be done for that? Yeah, we're going to get into that a little bit later, too, is palliative care and things that we have available now that were in the past. There is no reason for euthanasia, mercy killing in a society. And if you're saying it's for removing the pain, we can we can help them deal with pain. So taking someone off the ventilator is considered euthanasia. Well, we're going to talk about that too. OK. I didn't know I missed that. We got lots of stuff. Even the case studies are going to look at that one. Trying to get through those grades. So just trying to define some of these things out. So there's a hard and fast standard we have. The world doesn't want tight standards. They want it all sloppy so they can just keep working around till they get what they want. But we have standards. All right, so let's deal with handicaps, because that's often where some of these things come in. The person is handicapped, they don't have a quality of life that's worth living, who's to say? In England, there's not a whole lot of down children anymore. They abort them. They abort them. Oh, that's why there's not that many. Right. Find out their markers. This is with amniocentesis or whatever. Yeah, we talked about that. What's the only reason they do an amniocentesis? To see for genetic deformities, right? Uh-huh. And if there's genetic deformities? Start over. Yeah. Try again. Yeah, it'd be different with if they were doing it as, okay, then we're gonna be prepared for this child when they're born to deal with this, but that's not why they're doing it. And that's a change actually in philosophy, but it has some effect. All right, what are some reasons that people are either born with or develop handicaps, including mental disabilities? What can cause that? Okay, could be genetic, we'll just start off with that, right? He was born that way, right? Could be born that way, could be affected of substance abuse. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Illness of the mother. Malpractice, you know. Malpractice, okay, did something wrong in the process of even giving birth? I actually have a gentleman on my street who said they gave their child, I wish I could remember which family, vaccine it was, gave their child a vaccine. As soon as he took the vaccine, he became a mental handicap. Probably the MMR. It most likely was. Yeah, so now he's like 30 year old adult that is fully depending on his parent because he can't barely move. What's the MMR? Measles, mumps, and rubella. Put them all together. accidents. There's all sorts of reasons why someone could be born with handicaps, disabilities, or haven't developed, okay? Accidents are very common, right? It could be a sin issue though, right? Often, usually there's sin involved somewhere, but not necessarily that individual, somebody else's. Okay, and that's what I want to kind of get to. There's different There's all sorts of ways you can end up handicapped. But now I'll give you some biblical ones. Disease, of course, is one. That's why Jesus kept healing people with all these diseases. Mephibosheth, he was an accident. He just dropped. So he's lame, and yet that was used for God's glory. John 9, the man born blind, that was the question, right? Was this his mother's sin? know, her mom and dad sinned or his sinned, but neither. This is for the glory of God, so God can glorify himself in it. But the question was specifically, did mom and dad sin? Well, why would the man be born blind? there's a curse upon us. That's one of the things we need to understand, which is question number four. Are handicaps part of God's original design? No, but he can use them, right? And that's part of the idea. Now understand two handicaps could be a punishment for sin. Second Kings 15.5. It was Azariah. He was proud. He went in and even though the priest warned him not to come in to the holy place to offer incense. He did it anyways, and God struck him with leprosy. All right, so sometimes it is. What about Jacob? Well, you know, don't wrestle with God. He wins. Just yield to God if you don't win. How about 1 Corinthians 11.30? I mentioned a lot of communion services. Some were sick and some were even died. Okay, so that can happen. It just doesn't, we can't assume that's because of someone's sin that they have a handicap, but it could be. Okay, their sin or somebody else's sin or I would say like the man born blind, we live in a synchronous world and yet God can use that. So it's not part of God's original design. So what is God's role in handicaps after the fall? So then use it for his glory as he did with Azariah. It could be a reminder of your fallen nature and you're in trouble now and you're going to have become dependent upon me. So it certainly is humbling. Azariah was very greatly humbled. It could make a man dependent upon God. What was Moses' excuse of why God shouldn't send him? Yeah, I don't speak so well. What did God tell him? To paraphrase the verse? Yeah, who made your mouth? Okay, I'll use it. I did. Well, tell me again. Tell me if I chose you, you're going. I made your mouth. It doesn't have to meet your sense. That's me and mine, but okay. Aaron will be your mouthpiece. All right. Bring glory to God again. The man born blind is a good example of that, right? All right. Do handicaps or the quality of life issue, does that change the value of human life according to God? Not at all. Not at all. Why not? oh you have value and can be used for his purpose then why do we have value because we're creating this image i'm gonna go back to that basic thing because it's easy to stop over to well wait a minute doesn't the scripture talk about the eunuch is not allowed into the temple true it does say that so does he have less value to god No. Someone who was physically damaged? Were they a priest who had a physical handicap? Were they allowed to serve in that capacity? No. They couldn't even be part of the sinners. Have you looked into that? Yeah. What was the theory behind that? Why? It's because God is holy and he wants perfection in front of him. Okay. Why not give a blemished lamb? for sacrifice. That's the idea. So we tend to look at, especially as Americans, as the individual. When God looks beyond that, he will have a different purpose for that individual. So this will go to Romans 9, that God makes each vessel for his own purpose. And even a vessel of glory, there's different levels of glory. So just because you would like to be, I say you're in ancient Israel and You have a pretty voice, and you wanted to sing and be part of the temple choir, but you were mangled up. And the priest said, no, I'm sorry, you can't. Does that mean you still can't sing for God's glory? It's just that you're not singing in the temple. That's all. But see, we immediately fall into this idea that we should be able to do anything we want, and that's not true. All right, now I'm going to carry that one step farther. You don't have the gift you would like, but you want to serve God. So you'd be upset you can't serve the way you'd like to? No, you serve the best of your ability, whatever that is. You want to be a preacher, but you have a disease that makes it very difficult to speak. I don't know if anybody wants to be a preacher. Some women do. So what then classifies someone as handicapped? Like, I mean, you wear glasses. So what Yeah, I wear weird glasses. You see how weird my glasses are? Oh, no. What? I took it out. Because I can see better. That's awesome. We've got a trendsetter here. That is great. Well, if it comes to serving God, you have specific things in the Old Testament of exactly what would eliminate someone from doing that. But generally, a handicap means you're just not able to do something fully as most normal people would. That would be a handicap. So being in a car going to groceries is not being handicapped. I'm sorry, the what? If you're fat and you're using a car to go to the grocery shop, that's not technically being a handicap. Well, I got the blue sticker. The whole state's very liberal. Yeah, you would be handicapped from that. You've handicapped yourself because you actually can't do what you should be able to do. You've handicapped yourself. So you're going to have different ones. So when it comes to serving God in the Old Testament, they're specifically listed out of who's going to be excluded. And others, which is not in those lists, what's going to handicap us is, well, what prevents us from doing what we'd like to do? And then it's good for us, it's like, can you do a comet or not? All right. You pointed out I wear glasses. Well, that is a handicap. And that's why I'm not a pilot. The Air Force wasn't going to take me to be a pilot. I wore glasses. Otherwise, I probably would have been a pilot. I really loved planes. I loved that. It took ground school and I couldn't afford flight school and I wasn't eligible for the Air Force. So God had other plans for me. So now maybe just even as an illustration, God will move and put you where he wants you. even if that wasn't your first desire. He'll change your desires to match what he really wants you to have. A lot of handicaps we can overcome. Some you can't. It's just going to hinder you from doing things. So you can't do things like you might want to have done. If you got an accident, your pelvis was crushed. Well, I'll use David as example. David got very sick. His desire was to go into the very risky places as a missionary. He was like, you want to go to Sudan while I was in civil war. He was single. He was David the brave adventurer. He got very sick. And even though he was offered a scholarship at a seminary college in South Africa, they really wanted him there. Physically, he just couldn't risk it. So he ended up staying here and marrying Natasha. So I guess it worked out. We've got a couple of granddaughters from it, so we're happy. And he's happy too. And he realizes that he can see that. So handicaps can be used by God to direct us where he wants us to be. But part of this here I wanted to show is the quality of life is not based on what your abilities. It's based on the fact you're made in the image of God, and your value to God is what he can do through you. Not what you think you can do for him, but what he can do through you according to his own design. And we can't be comparing ourselves with other people. He has a plan for each of us. Or we could have put it this way. God's valuation of us is based completely on faithfulness to him, not on our idea of what productivity is. He values faithfulness, not productivity. He wants you to be as productive as he wants you to be. Just be as, go for your maximum. Sometimes people become more productive when they get a handicap because it's a new place in life and they realize this is what God has for them. And like Johnny Erickson taught us. That wasn't her intention. You know, she'd rather be horseback riding, but dive off a pier and did all that. Or Doug Welch would be an example. He didn't expect to be where he is, but God was using him. So sometimes a handicap will force you to focus on the things that are really important rather than being distracted by all the things you could be able to do. I see hesitancy there, but. I guess I'm just trying not to be emotional. So early in my military career, I was put on a P2 profile, so a permanent profile. I had two bad discs. That's when initially I became a combat medic. And in that year, my unit got deployed and I had to stay back. And I, it was very, Difficult. I'm sorry. Yeah. Cause you wanted to be, we're here. Right. So, and then, and I didn't know what was God's plan about that. So then I ended up in this program called the Wounded Warrior Program in the beginning stages, which is now has really blown up, but I was at Walter Reed in DC. And so I was part of that initial push of when, so when soldiers came back and then we would initially take care of them and get them on their way, medications, counseling, stuff like that. I didn't know that program before, but then God had placed me there, but I was just so like, you know, downtrodden because my team is out and I'm back. But then it turned out to be really a blessing in how I was able to maneuver in that community, even though I wasn't able to participate being shipped overseas, right? So, but that, it took a while for me to be accepting of that. It often can. Proverbs that help, that is, the mind of a man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. We think we want to go there. Right. Right. Let's face it, a Southern California boy ending up pretty good with a snowplow? Yeah, it's not supposed to happen. It's true. Ending up pretty good with a snowplow in New York. Especially a guy from Los Angeles being in Yankee territory. This is not good. The only two Dodger fans in the church? Well, three. Your mother made you a Dodger fan whether you want it to be or not. So three of us. Diane, I, and John Halban, but that was Brooklyn Dodgers for him. Yeah, he watched them as a kid in Brooklyn. Everybody said, Yankees or Mets. So God puts you where he wants you, and he'll direct you. And that's actually one of the things that, especially as you get an older life, you want to be pointing that out to those who are younger, so they just have confidence. God will take you where he wants you. So young man, God's going to take you where he wants you. And he kept you from combat. You know, I'm young, gunko, right? And I don't know. I'm just thinking of that. And I'm not thinking of God's purpose or, and just praying on and seeking his face at that, that time, that moment, it took some time for me to understand that. And that's one of the things we're always going to have to do, because you're going to deal with people who have handicaps of all sorts. And sometimes you're going to look like that's not a handicap, but they do think it is. Okay. You got to help them through it. But there is a, God has not lost control. He knows what he's doing and he'll enable you to use this and use you in the midst of this, right? We've had quite a bit of experience with people from that, even our own family. And you're living it. Not easy. David is too. Jimmy's been frustrated most of his life. I can't do things, why am I not like other people? So that's always gonna be true. Can we help people? So that's the reason, this is part of medical ethics. So a man with great compassion, God put him right in the right place to help these people recover. And we just have to look as if it's up to God. Our lives are in his hands to be used for his purposes, however he wants. So when it comes to the political debates on this side, it's like handicaps are not devaluing to the worth of the individual. That does not mean they can do everything everybody else can, which means we all have to be careful of where our society has gone and thinks that anybody with a handicap should be able to do anything anybody else can do. That's simply not true. And we're hitting up against reality here when we try to make it so, because it's just not true. We're going to have compassion. We're going to work with them. We'll help them. But the reality is that they're not going to be able to do what other people do. They have to be learned to work within whatever their limits are. So some of the laws that have gotten passed trying to do that for handicap are actually not very good. Because in the end, they're not helpful. You want to help someone work in the fullness of whatever their limits are, not with their expectation they should be able to do anything anybody else does. So that would include, especially from my view, that if you are an employer and the person with a handicap cannot physically do the job, you shouldn't be forced to hire the person and then to hire somebody else to assist them to do what they can't do. Does that make sense? But we've gotten into that kind of thing in our society, right? That's kind of where we're already at. There's some of the handicap laws, when that went in, what was it? I'm trying to think when that went in, was that far back as Nixon? No, a little later than that. I'm trying to think when this happened. Yeah. And we had all sorts of these laws passed that accommodations for those who are handicapped. And some were reasonable. Some were completely unreasonable. They have to be reasonable. Like what you said, you can't be a pilot because you have a, yeah. The government can just get away with that. But an employer can't. Yeah, they have. They pass laws that you have to follow. They don't, but you do. Oh, man. So, you know, some of those aren't in there, but we've got a lot of, what about, okay, I'm going to get controversial here. What about some of the laws that are now affecting our school districts that they have to provide assistance, whatever it costs? What does that mean? Provide assistance. For what? For kids with handicaps. Whatever it costs so they can stay equivalent with their age grade level. mental handicapped, physical handicapped, whatever it is. You can see the compassion there. They're supposed to be getting a level of education that's- Okay, but if you have someone who's mentally handicapped, can they- Mentally handicapped. Okay, can they actually receive the same level of education? No, they shouldn't even be in public school. They should be in special programs. They're not going to get an equivalent. They can't. They can't receive it. Actually, some physical will have decaf. They'll probably keep you from that, too, because you physically can't be there. Students at the CMU, PhD students, would see that physics. And you have to be let into the classrooms. So what? They don't have to eat it. No, it touches you. And you can't get an education at the CIA if you can't eat what you eat. But you have to. But the CIA says, you pay me the money. Yeah, exactly. Who cares? But what if it's a government school and they're not paying? The taxpayer is paying, but I want to do this. You shouldn't be doing this. So that's what I'm talking about. Poor advice. What's behind all this is that it's your productivity. It's your abilities that give you value rather than God gives you value because you're made in his image and he will get glory for himself within whatever limitations he's allowed you to have. There's a different mentality that goes with that. And what we want to do is help people with the latter. You're valuable because you're made in the image of God and he will glorify himself in you with your handicaps, whatever they are. Period. Do you want to speak to that, Annie? No, I think you did a good job. I'm actually kind of in that scenario right now because Peyton and Kirsten, Kirsten has ADD and Peyton has dyslexia. Some of it's on them, they could be doing better, but they're going to get through. they're pushing for 504 plans I already said absolutely not they're like they're pushing medication obviously you know so I said but then like the 504 plans I said we have to get this in place now because we have to budget for it and at some point I like 70s and 80s they can do you know they're not going to be acing every test and to me like that's okay and I've told my girls I said there is a God has a plan and a path for you as 70 getting 70s and 80s. You know, I said, it's okay. But the school is like, no, you got to go to college and you got to get into school and we're going to push you in this direction. And I've been fighting the school district this whole year with, I say, you don't have to hire extra people for my girls. And I'm not going to go to the pediatrician and insist on all these tests when they, I mean, they have tremendous work ethic, they have so many other spiritual gifts. It's just doesn't have to be academics. And it's frustrating because it's, you know, they, they want to push them on the mold, because this is what we value, not what God values. And that's part of what we want to understand, we can help people with regardless of whatever your limitations are, God will use you. My youngest, actually he was diagnosed with Asperger's, so like ADD. ADHD and Asperger's and learning disabilities. So yeah, he wasn't going to be academic. He couldn't go to college. He tried once. It wasn't a good experience for him. Let's see, so the three boys, let's see, The two older ones both have masters. Jonathan has two. Guess who makes the most money? And that's where he shines. And also he still sticks to the Feingold diet for ADD. It's for kids with ADD or ADHD. It helps a lot. No, it eliminates artificial colors and flavors. And a few, a couple of like, what is it? Preservatives. I can't think of which ones. There were a couple of eliminated. And yeah, it was night and day with Jimmy. I gave it to him for, he was three and he was so out of control. I couldn't, I couldn't I prayed God would get the demon out of him because he was so out of control. Yeah, Lord, whatever's in him. Within a week, within a week, I met somebody who had a son with ADD and we put him, I got the book out of the library. We read it. I, after two days on that diet, and it's just a matter of what brand of peanut butter you buy and that kind of thing. He was 80%. better. Who switched her child on us? This isn't ours. Thank you, but this one isn't ours. That's the answer for Peyton. It actually does make a difference. I mean, I think a lot of this is going to come to light with like RFK and the food industry. I mean, there's food dyes that are made from parasitic bugs. Yeah. Like it's like and cold starts about yeah like the the shredded cheese you buy from the store the starch that's on it is made from tilapia shells and bones like it's just there's just random stuff really you would never suspect i'd rather take the parasitic bugs than the coal tars okay that's petroleum products so but the point with this is we will do everything we can to help someone But what we aren't going to say is that we can push you past the limit of what you already have. You need to learn to work within what God has limited you. And your value is not in going to college. It's not being like everybody else. It's in whatever God has done for you and what he allows you to do. They made it. Welcome. And that's the problem. We're trying to get everybody equal. That's exactly it. So we're not looking for equality. We're looking for maximizing ability within what actually is there. End of life care. You're going to see where a lot of this just starts coming together because some of the stuff we discussed ends up coming back. to some of these next questions. Living well, first of all, what is a living well? I gave you a link to a legal Zoom that had a good definition of all that. So what's a living well? It's directives to make decisions on your behalf and you can't medically. Yeah. Your medical decisions. Okay. So that's going to be different between that and your, this is approaching death. It's your last will and Testament is what happens after you die. Okay. Living will is care. Okay. So that, so what would be the advantage of a living will? you know, spouse make a medical decision for you. Number one, you determine who is going to make those decisions for you. Because some people have spouses, they may not want making medical decisions for them. Okay. Now, legally, that's who it's going to default to. But you may not have that you may want somebody else, like maybe a child who actually cares about you. But if you lay out your intentions, it eliminates the burden on the family to have to try and make that decision on your behalf. So that's the second advantage is you are making decisions toward your end-of-life care according to what you would like to have happen. But that does mean you have to think through quite a few issues. And sometimes that's not easy. you can give clear direction before the situation arises. That's an advantage. What's the disadvantages? It has to be well-written, though. It has to be well-written. It's hard to think of everything. You might miss something. You also might change your mind. And what if you change your mind after you're not really capable or you're competent to have a different will put in? So what would be the number one thing you'd actually want? If you're gonna put a living world together, what's the primary issue you want in it? What's gonna happen to you if you become, yeah, DNR, if you become disabled or? Well, no, I'm more basic than that. For me, it's easy because you're automatically it. Oh, who's gonna be it? Who is your... Who is the person who made those decisions for you if you're incompetent? Yeah. Okay. That's the number one. Okay. Cause someone's going to be making those decisions. Somebody you trust. So if that's all you had in living well, that would probably be sufficient. Make sure it is someone you trust because if it goes to default things, okay. What if something happened to me and we got an accident, Diane got killed. I'm all mangled up. Who's going to make those decisions for me? Jonathan. Yeah, I probably should have something that says that. No, David should do it. Well, it's not going to be Jimmy. He loves me. I love him. But that's not where he's going to be good. So you have a backup plan. Yeah, a backup plan. Because that's the whole idea that you will spell these things out. You will spell out whether Well, go to the next thing, DNRs. Okay, that means do not resuscitate, but I'll let Diane speak. There's more than just DNR. There's the do not this and do do this. So do you want to say? Well, there's just, DNR means do not resuscitate, but that can, there are different levels at different hospitals. So it depends on the hospital and the state. the degree of DNR. So you, a person might choose, you know, I still want to be hydrated. I still want antibiotics. Um, if I get, because you could say a DNR, somebody gets an awful infection and then they're not doing badly, but they die because they had a DNR. So you specify exactly what you want. I don't want CPR. I don't want to go on a ventilator. I don't want, um, I probably want to, I don't want to go to a ventilator under these conditions. Under these conditions. I don't want certain drugs. I don't want remdesivir. The biggest thing I think of is if somebody has a heart attack, like how many times you, you see people are coming back after you put them on a, on the shock, the shock machine, and that would still fall under the not resuscitate, right? It might, but you could say, you can shock me. Just don't, don't do other things. I heard a code called once in the morgue. Yeah, I was working and I'm like, oh my. Can you imagine the story? And they weren't really dead. And they were already in the morgue and found to be alive. Yes. Can you imagine if she'd had a whole career in this, the story she'd have? Yeah, definitely. I have enough stories. And this year she were doing it. So living well. is simply stated then, it is my specifications of what I would like at the end of my life, what kind of care I would receive. And it can get complex. you have to think through all those issues. A DNR would usually be part of a living will, or it may be a separate document, or you can include it in a living will document, but it is what heroic measures you may take or may not take in trying to preserve my life. But those things can change. They can change depending on your condition. What I would like in terms of, I just got in a terrible accident and you know, they pronounce me brain dead. Do I want them to, what do I want it to do? As opposed to I got sick and I had to go on a ventilator because I got so weak, but the prognosis was, is I would probably come out of it. You see where it gets a little tricky here? And this is why having someone who's designated to help make those decisions if you're incompetent is crucial. Chandra's mother was brain dead. Really? So they said, so they said she was brain dead and they wanted to pull the plug and she lived two more years and came out of it and was alert and oriented, cognizant and having conversations with conversations with her daughter and granddaughters. What is the definition of brain dead medically? They do a test called an electroencephalogram, EEG, and it's studying the brain waves. And the brain waves don't look like there's anything going on. They're not really moving. It looks like the person isn't thinking, but it is reversible. Sometimes you can have your head swells when you have a head injury or a stroke. And then when the swelling goes down, sometimes that comes back. that people have been in comas. I've heard it a lot in my career where people have been in comas and they've heard everything people say about them that are in the room. And then they wake up, they might wake up in two weeks, they might wake up in five years, but they remember from the voices who was talking to them. Yeah, it can. So if you have a DNR and it covers most things, everything, then you get a simple, yeah, a simple infection or something. And they say, oh, they have a DNR. We can't give antibiotics, you know, and they're not really bad. They're just preparing for the future. So you have to be really careful and you can change it at any time. And that's the thing you have to have somebody you trust be able to, which is an advantage of disadvantage because you've changed it and they couldn't find your latest change. I know. Yeah. But what would, so what would take precedence, the DNR or the power of attorney? Power of attorney. Power of attorney. Okay. All right, so I know this sounds like a lot. It gets complex, but be aware of it. Just being aware of it puts you a long ways ahead because either conversation to come up, okay, and you don't have to be a pastor for these things to come up. It can be a family discussion that gets going. Okay, grandma's got this going on. Well, and the family starts discussing it. That's acting in similar scenarios, right? So DNRs, there are times they could be very helpful because it does express, this is what I would like. I don't want these kinds of heroics being done for whatever reason, but I would like these things being done, that's helpful. But they can also be extremely immoral. What if the DNR is something that you got coerced into? The family's putting pressure on you to sign this document because, well, they're kind of anxious for their inheritance. I wish that was facetious, but that's often happens, right? They're facetious, they want it, okay? When someone can end up being persuaded contrary to the actual medical situation due to somebody else's ulterior motives, whatever they may be, Well, yeah, your dad, my dad, your dad was a good example of that. He did, he, did he have a living will? I don't think he did. No, but the doctor was, he didn't have to die. I mean, God had him die, but he didn't have to die. He, he was old, but he got sick, gallbladder attack. And he was told by the doctor. Well, actually, they were trying to help him. They were trying to find a specialist in other hospitals to a machine, some sort of a machine to help him and they couldn't locate it. And so, and they, they needed his bed. He was in the ER still, he wasn't even in a room yet. And then they switched their, their whole gear. He called their gears, they came in and they said, He only has three hours to live. And so my mother-in-law said, well, take out the IV. It's bothering him. And that meant the antibiotics. So they took out- And hydration. And hydration. And we found out two days later. And I said, what do you mean? His brother's saying he's thirsty. And I said, well, doesn't he have an IV? And it was a mess. And finally, all that to say is that he could have been saved. They said he had sepsis. But the day before he didn't have sepsis, all of a sudden he has sepsis and he's dying in three hours. He didn't die in three hours. He died in three days because he was dehydrated. So- The point here is you have to be careful because even medical personnel, we're going to get to in a minute, you may assume they want to do the best for you. That may not be their actual motivation. They may have a different motivation. And so they give you wrong medical advice. So that would be a problem. If a DNR is in place against that person's will, that would be immoral. So a lot of these things that could be helpful, but they could also be immoral depending on what's behind them. Okay, hospice. What is hospice? palliative care? Yeah, it's end-of-life care. Palliative is a big part of it, but it includes a lot more than just your comfort. They actually will take care of it. It's trying to make your last days best possible. Is that a good way to describe it? Comfort. Comfort, which is more than just palliative care. Okay. What are advantages of hospice care? You're going to get one-on-one care as opposed to being in the hospital. You'll probably get better care. And depending where you are, hospice can be done in the hospital. It can be done at home. You could have it at home. That's an advantage. They come and visit you. Sometimes you can get better medical treatment in the hospice than you can in the hospital because the family can help direct what they would like done. That was true for Mary. Another advantage, you may have some, a lot of the nurses that go into hospice care, they actually really care about people. And they really want to help, and they're very compassionate. That could be advantage. Disadvantage, you may get one of these advocates for death. They're out there. When Alex Saddles' mom was in, There was a nurse there that was pushing, she was an advocate for death, wanted to go on hospice and convince her to sign these forms and stuff. And then his, if I recall it correctly, his mom said to Nancy, it's like, okay, so when does it happen? Well, what? Well, I was supposed to die now, right? Well, that doesn't work that way. You're gonna go through this process and this is what's gonna happen as you proceed for death. And she changed her mind. and lived what, another two years, I think. Something like that. So there could be a disadvantage. She was going to go on hospice, but she had an advocate for death, not someone who was actually trying to help her. You could, let's see, another advantage. Actually, this was one, something that was going on with the COVID-19 fiasco stuff is try to get patient, on hospice, so you can get them out of the hospital and give them treatments. Because you get treatments out of the hospital, you can't get in. If you can't, yeah, because for a while they were not letting people with COVID leave the hospital, even if they contracted it from another patient in the hospital. they would not let the family take the person home even to diet. And so the only legal way you could do it since they were blocking you from removing the patient was to say, I'm going to hospital bill of rights for the patient. I'm going to move them to hospice. And then once they got into hospice, they could go home and they got ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that made them better that they wouldn't give them the hospital. Again, disadvantages, if it's an advocate for death, they may actually shorten your life. You may have one who would actually practice euthanasia on you against your will. An incorrect diagnosis ruling in hospice may cut the patient off from treatments that could have been beneficial and even prolong their life. So again, you need to have someone who understands the medical community and what's going on. So it's always, you want a good advocate. It's amazing how just on Tuesday night, my friend Pete, he's taking care of his stepmother in Brookmead, up in Rhinebeck. And she fell and broke her hip. And she got released. Some physical therapy hospital released her back to the nursing home. And he got a letter in the mail that says, we don't cover physical therapy in the nursing home. That's an additional cost to be 504 a day. And so he scheduled a meeting. And he went in and he talked, the first person he talked to, the nurse on duty, the head nurse at that time, said, you know, this is her new normal. Like, I wouldn't do the physical therapy. It's not worth the cost. And he, like, he called me up. So I went up to him. We talked it through. And I said, I think you should get a second opinion. I said, I think you should go back to the doctor. Release her from the hospital. Like, what is the normal course? Because she has dementia. So she doesn't know where she is. But then the nurse that's basically on the next shift, he got another appointment with that nurse and the nurse says, absolutely, you want to do the physical therapy because, you know, she's going to develop sores if she's not up out of the chair and it's going to be a more slow and painful death, you know, just because she isn't doesn't verbalize pain doesn't mean she's not feeling pain. So like two different shifts of like nursing home. Once I don't bother, you know, she doesn't know where she is. Just let this run its course. And then the next person said, yeah, get her moving, which brings up a general point. always get a second opinion. And the more serious the issue is, the more you need a second opinion. And as I revisited the DNR, because that nurse he's because he felt weird about the DNR because the DNR was kind of like a very blanket like any under he said DNR do the DNR or not or resuscitate her if there's a possibility of her carrying on but then the nurse who ended up giving a secondary advice says we can alter the DNR to say for certain types of things we will do a resuscitation but she said if if we can we can execute the DNR if she has to do something that requires chest compressions because um the structure of her bones and her sternum that will have to break them and she'll die a slow, painful death over a few days. So like, there was actually like different ways you could write up the DNR to resuscitate in these situations, but in a chest compression situation, let her pass. So good example of why you want to have a good medical advocate that you trust. It's like companions. What involvement should the church have in ongoing political battles over euthanasia? That's pretty simple, isn't it? We need to be very involved. This is a fight. It's already lost in several states, although the fight continues even in those states because they keep trying to change the law to make it even more loose than it is. The laws usually get passed with some initial qualifications and then over time they get amended so that there's less and less qualifications for doing euthanasia on people. This is true in other countries too. We've already seen what's happened in places like Denmark. What began as mercy killing has become we got to get rid of the excess. We don't want the handicap. We don't want grandma because grandma is costing us. And you can euthanize even, is it Denmark? You can now euthanize for depression. So it's an ongoing fight. You have to keep fighting it. So yes, we do need to be involved with it. Euthanasia is need to be, we understand it is sinful, period. Sinful, we understand the emotions that can be involved in all it, but euthanasia is sinful. Palliative care, I'll let you address that one. Is there really any need for euthanasia in terms of pain management? We're going to save them from the pain in modern medical facilities. No, I'm not saying I'm for euthanasia at all. I'm not, but there are some things like burn victims. Okay. No amount of pain medication can cover that pain. Okay. Some cancers it's intractable, they call it intractable pain and nothing really covers it. That's why when you have hospice, they don't just give you pain medication. give you morphine and they give you a tranquilizer as well. Well, that's my point. So in modern medicine, does euthanasia ever trump other things we could do to remove the person from experiencing the pain? Hospice can remove most of the pain, if not all the pain. I knew I could get it. You've got to be a DNR to go to hospice and they reevaluate every six months. Okay. So it can get complex. All right, let's talk about some changes happened. Hippocratic Oath. Anybody get a chance to read through the different ones I posted? Were you surprised at the changes? Not surprised, but it's pretty scary. It is pretty scary. So the original Hippocratic Oath, Hippocrates, it was swearing to the gods and it would have, there's quite a bit in there. Usually it is summarized as do no harm, a little more nuanced than that. It's like recognize you may have to harm the patient by surgery or something, but the end goal is the betterment of the patient. They have restrictions on exploiting the patient financially and actually had a restriction on creating an amorous advantage. What's an amorous event? Well, I'm going to take advantage. They're going to be interested in me sexually. So you can't use, can't sexually exploit your patient. Oh, I'm like amorous. You mean AMOUR. Amorous. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Amore. Well, I read it. I read the original one today. That's 2,500 years old. And it's well ready. It was 2,500 BC, I'm sorry. And it doesn't say do no harm, but it implied it. Yeah, that's what I said. It's summarized, usually it's that. It's summarized, but basically it was very exacting. It had rules, like you are not allowed to do an abortion. You are not allowed to give a lethal dose of medication. So the specifics were as the new one. As you go through, there's many different Hippocratic oaths out there. And some of the, as you get to the modern timeline, some of them, abortion's allowed. You can do that. And euthanasia is allowed. And the removal and the exploitation financially is removed. And so is the taking advantage in an amorous manner. Those are removed too. It also, I noticed the new one said, had added something that I did not know. It said, that you have to take care of yourself first. The doctor has to take care of him or herself before she can treat a patient. So you've got to take care of yourself. And then the dictate to doctors for their patients is according to the doctor's conscience, not according to a set of rules. Or in the patient's best interest. Yeah. The doctor's conscience. So this is why you will find some doctors that it's obvious they care about you. They're looking for your best interest. And other ones, you might just put a dollar sign on your forehead because that's all they're interested in. And that's why we've also gone to a lot of these, you know, they're timing it. I got seven minutes to deal with everything you got. Right. rather than actually paying attention to you. And that's the reason I put this one in there, when it comes to medical ethics, do not fall for the trap that it's Marcus Welby MD. It's sort of one of these other old shows from the 60s or 70s where the doctor is portrayed as really caring about you. A lot of modern doctors do not. There are some excellent doctors out there. And they still go into it for those reasons. They want to help people, but there's a lot of them that are not. And depending on what school they go to, that philosophy is taught to them all the way through medical school. So you have to kind of now start checking, where did they graduate from? And they have to start quizzing them a bit on their moral ethics. That's the reason I put it there. You need to be aware it has changed and we're already seeing that change. The doctor who, murdered your father was following what he believed to be right, because for him, he was no longer being a doctor. He just had to follow the protocol of the hospital. So I know your father is bleeding internally, but we're going to continue to give him the medication that's causing him to bleed out. Why? What's the hospital protocol? He broke his leg. So we had to give him pre-aspirin while he's on his other- and heparin, so he's on his other blood thinners, and he's bleeding, and yeah, and vitamin K. But that's the hospital protocol. So you have a doctor there no longer thinking as a doctor. And then they told me he died of COVID. And he'd been tested, what, three times, four times by that time? It was negative. It was negative. So he didn't die of COVID. He died because the doctor followed hospital protocol instead of what he knew was right. So you have to be careful with that. And when you're talking with people about medical stuff, you hate to cause them to lose faith in their doctor, but you do want them to have questions for their doctor. And you should have questions too. What are your ethics? What are your medical ethics? And if it's a doctor who doesn't have decent medical ethics, it's not a doctor you want. Does that make sense? Okay, that's why I brought in the Hippocratic Oath. All right, how about competence for medical decision-making? When does a person become competent for making their own medical decisions legally? 18, 21, depending on the state or country you're in. Unless you're legally emancipated, or the state has enacted new laws to allow you to make your own medical decisions for certain things. Only certain things. Like your gender, or abortion. But to get an aspirin, you still have to call your parent. Yeah, I didn't, I had never encountered having to show my ID to buy like cough medicine. Right. Until I moved here. And I, I don't think I had it on me. And I couldn't buy cough medicine. It was my second semester here. What? Right. Cough medicine. What kind of cough medicine was it? Probably, I don't know. Regular. Yeah, it was cocaine in it. They use it to make meth. And certain decongestants, Sudafed, you have to sign something because they use it to make crack cocaine. Yeah. Like, why am I signing this? Oh, I might make crack cocaine. Look at me. Do I look like I'm going to make crack cocaine? Here, take it. Get out of here. I'll give you all the medication. Just get out of my pharmacy. All right. What factors can make a person incompetent to make their own medical decisions? Functions. Brain functions, certainly one of them. Okay. Your mental state. What about emotional state? Okay. You can be so depressed. Okay. Certain medications. Medication use. Mental illness. Coercion. Who should make medical decisions for those who are incompetent to make their own? Here. Now, we're going to go back to Living Wells and all that, right? Why do you want someone designated? Okay, if no one's designated, where does it, who does that fall to? What's the normal chain? Your parents, your spouse first, then your children, next your kin. It follows that line. So make sure if you're not in really good, if you don't have really good kin, or you don't trust them, make sure you have a living problem. So if you're not married and you're not a minor, it's your parents. And then, well, next kin, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, We're getting action tonight. I know what we're doing when we get home. I'm going to have something that says, this is who I want to make. Now, that's also assuming that person's making these decisions with the advice of competent medical care. It's assuming that, but you want that as well. At what point should someone have a health proxy? Okay, that's a form of a living will, it's a proxy, is that I have designated this person as the legal right. So either it's part of a living will, or if the patient's mental, emotional incompetence, whatever his main incompetence, is becoming apparent, this can prevent the premarital decisions. One should be put into place. And that's something to keep in mind even Uh, if your parents are aging, keep that in mind, you may need to get, it's like, you know, it may be time. Would you like to put me on a proxy so that I can make sure I'm taking care of you? And like I signed one or I got one today. So, and it was just because somebody is going to have surgery and it's expected to be a decent surgery. There's no, it's not serious, but. in case anything goes wrong and she's under anesthesia, she wants to be able to have the doctor call me and say what's going on. Because we just had that with my younger sister. So in the middle of her surgery. And with HIPAA laws, even to be able to talk to doctors, you got to get a waiver on that too. This is part of what the society we live in. So pastor, if you were, you were in an accident, you go to the emergency room, you're incapacitated, whether temporary or for a period, what is the problem? Like they're going through your ID and then trying to track down through their spouse or somebody. That's exactly what they do. So it doesn't hurt to, you know, in any situation, if you have, or if you have someone that you fully trust, you're scanning into your phone or something. So have something by which the authorities, when they're looking at that, they can find whoever they need to talk to. Because that's what the police are going to be doing. If you're in an accident or something, if they're involved, they're going to be doing that part of it while the medical personnel are trying to take care of you. Otherwise, some of the staff in the hospital is going to start making calls, trying to find somebody who can make these decisions. Especially for senior citizens, like aging parents, that may be most can find it in the house. Okay, so that's medical competence. Experimental medical treatments. All right, medical research. When is it immoral to use humans for medical research? When is it acceptable for humans to be used for medical research? If it causes harm to anyone for the research to be done, it shouldn't. Well, it's medical research. They don't necessarily know how much harm it's going to cause. On the patient's consent. Yeah, the patient's consent. This question is going to be revolving around the patient's consent for it. And that's what I wanted. It's always immoral when it's coerced in any manner. Okay. But it is moral when a competent, and there's a key word, a competent individual can acknowledgeably weigh the risks and make a decision for themselves. Okay, there's gonna be the difference. If someone's else making that decision for you, that's immoral. If you can make it for yourself, you can weigh all the risks, then you can do that. All right. Actually, Grace did that. She was in medical trials, and she knew the risks. And this is one of the great things about Grace. She said she would do it knowing it probably wouldn't help her, but knowing it could help other people in the future. So she was willing to go through this. But morally, It was a moral decision, she was competent, she understood, and she made a decision for the benefit of the people. Okay, EUAs, Emergency Youth Authorization. Okay, that's what it means. When should they be used and what restrictions are placed upon EUAs? Something nobody really talked about until 2020. A UA, what do you think? Now we talk about it a lot, right? All right. So when are UAs used? When there's an epidemic. When there's no medication to treat it. Okay. There's important restrictions on it. Number one, it's when it's used when there's no other known approved treatment or known relatively safe off-label treatment available. If those criteria are not met, You can't use it. Emergency use authorization. Because it's not tested. It's not tested. So actually what it is, is medical research. A EUA should be treated as if it is medical research. Now, that could be used and has been used with people with rare diseases. There's nothing really known. Someone's experimenting. They've volunteered for it, and they're going to put an EUA on it so the person actually can take the medication. There's actually a legal fight over that in the last few years. about new medications coming out. This is a very rare disease. They don't have enough people to be able to do all the medical research necessary to meet the standards. And so they have to get an EUA on it in order for the person even to be experimented on. I'm dying. Everything else I've exhausted. I'd like to at least try this thing. So would that fall under the clinical drug trials? Yeah, but there's standards for that. So clinical drug trials, if they can't meet the standards, sometimes what I've read, they put a EUA on it. So the person actually did. And there has been fighting to allow that because they can't get enough people. It's too rare of a disease. So you can see there could be a benefit. When does it become immoral? When it's coerced. Okay, because that's why I'm saying, when you're looking at EUA, you need to treat it as medical research, because that's actually what it is. We're not to the stage where we've done all the trials, everything's been tested, and we know what the risks are, we know all the data we need, and so it can reach approval, which takes years. All right. Anybody read the Nuremberg Code? All right. So those were in place after the Nuremberg trials, seeing what had happened in Nazi Germany. And they were supposed to protect humans. So it was designed as the code was to protect humans from involuntary experimentation. You become the lab rat. So now I'm going to segue from EUAs into our more recent experience with vaccines. And yes, I am putting the air quotes on the vaccines. All right. How's the definition of vaccines changed and why is that significant? What were the original vaccines? It's supposed to produce immunity and prevent you from actually getting the disease. So the term itself comes from vaca, cow. and traces back to developing smallpox vaccines from cowpox. We give them cowpox and it seemed like it would give immunity. Now there's actually some research to say it may not have worked as well as they thought, but that was the whole point of vaccines and why they're called that. It's the ideas you were given something that would cause your body to produce an immune response that would protect you from getting the disease. Well, you were given a, you were given a weakened part of the disease. You can get either a weakened form of it or a form that's related to it. Cowpox is a weaker form, close to the disease, or you're getting a dead virus. But the idea that any of these would produce within your own body a complete immune response so that it protects you from getting the disease. actually the protection would be is that as soon as you were infected, your body's immune response would defeat the infection and you would not get the disease. It would not progress symptomatically to having the full disease. Okay, that's the original definition. All right, how did that change? now it doesn't prevent, well. Well, it's been two changes. Yeah. It doesn't provide immunity and it's really just meant to lessen symptoms per se, as opposed to prevent getting the disease altogether. So the first one was with the flu vaccines, they changed the definition because they're always guessing. They're guessing at what, so they had to change the definition is that it may minimize your symptoms. May. But it still was the same idea is that it would produce in you an immune response. So if you got infected, your body would fight it off. But realizing it may or may not be the correct, you know, development of what they're giving vaccine, they made it sloppy. So what happened with COVID-19 vaccines? It's what you just said, right? Okay. So now it's not even that. So now it's something that could produce a immune response could have one factor. Your immune system is pretty complex and there's a lot of different factors that go into your complete response. So if they can produce one aspect of the response that may lessen how bad you, sick you get. So it's not, prevention isn't there anymore. It just lessen, they're now calling that a vaccine. But there's two issues with that because it's a different technology. Yeah, we're going to get to that. We're talking about the mRNA technology, but the definitions have changed and that fools people. So they're currently pushing some stuff and I'm sorry, I still don't understand how you can get a vaccine for bacteria. Unless you change the definition. Yeah. Okay. So maybe someone will eventually enlighten me about this, but it doesn't fit my understanding of vaccine definitions, but I'm an old guy and I kind of stick to old definitions. I don't like the new ones. Okay. So I just expressed how a vaccine is supposed to protect you from a specific disease. C, when is it appropriate to require vaccination participation in some societal function? What would be the chronic criteria you think should be there? Well, it should be tests. Yeah, that would help a lot, right? Okay. That would be for the particular thing, but when should a vaccine be required? Okay, I'll give you a couple ideas here. Okay, one, the disease is life-threatening or catastrophic. Disease prevention is necessary for that societal function to be able to function, i.e. military. All right, they're going off in some place, you can't have them getting all these diseases because they all drop dead and you lose. Okay. It is a thoroughly tested and approved actual vaccine for which medical and religious exceptions can be easily obtained. And there is not a proven and safe effective treatment plan for overcoming the disease. So I just gave you quite a few things there. Now I gave you those things as trying to think through the moral implications of each one of these things. So the first one really was is like, yeah, it should have been something tested. We're not doing medical experimentation on you and requiring that. That violates the Nuremberg Code, right? All right. Two, what exemptions already exist from such required vaccinations or at least have in the past? Religious or medical? Religious and medical. You have something that we already know, you're going to react to this, you can't have it. Or you have religious exemptions, or sometimes they'll call it a moral exemption, against it. That used to be pretty easy to get. That has changed. Three, what factors can make the vaccination mandate immoral? Well, go back to what Sam said. It's being coerced to it. It's not tested. It's experimental. So it doesn't meet the criteria I gave earlier. It'd be immoral to push it on the basis of lies and fraud. Of course, that doesn't happen, right? And you get difficult to get an exception. Okay. Um, it's produced or manufactured in a moral way. Okay. That would include the use of human tissues from abortion or tissues obtained illegally. Uh, it would also include things like there's a lack of quality control, so that safe and effective product. If that's not there, who knows what you're getting? Right. All right, so thinking through that, now let's go to the next one. What factors would help you determine whether you or your children should receive a particular vaccine? I think it's like what you said, the origin, you have to weigh the benefits and side effects. So there's going to be more factors involved with it. Benefits. Risks. What are the risks? Risks, side effects. What are the benefits? So that's going to include things like, how many vaccines are there now for a kid before they're even out of the hospital for after getting born? Nine. When they leave the hospital, many patients have had nine. Okay. And how many of those are actually life-threatening? Well, they say that 50% of all the SIDS death are within two weeks of leaving the hospital. So how many of the vaccines are the ones that are actually trying to prevent something that's lethal to the child? I don't know of anything. I mean, they're doing hepatitis B to babies before they leave the hospital when all they really had to do was check the mom for hepatitis B while she's pregnant or before she delivers. Hepatitis B you only get through drug use. So it's, I don't know how a baby could really get that, but they're giving all these a lot of vaccines. And there's four coming down the pike. the COVID vaccine is now in the child's- For New York. Yeah, for New York, in the child's- Protocols. Protocols. You mean as a baby or for them to attend school? They've already authorized it for under five. So it may be that, I think it might, I know for school for sure, but I'm not sure about how young they're going. they're going on, you have to think through these things. These are things Diana had a lot of discussions about in the last few years. And we'd even look back now, it's like, we would not have vaccinated our kids with some of the stuff that they were vaccinated with if we had to do it over again. We would do some. We would do polio. We would do polio. And I wish we could have done smallpox in a way, but they didn't. We got smallpox. Vaccine. No, that was the only one we got. Chickenpox. And our kids didn't get chicken pox until they got the vaccine. That was a clue for us early on. It's like something's not right here. They got exposed many times and never got it. They got the vaccine and got it immediately. What is it like if you get chicken pox, you won't get shingles? No, if you get chicken pox, you're more likely to get shingles. But if you've never had it, you won't. But if you get chicken pox as an adult, it's nasty. I never had chickenpox. My parents both did. We're just showing off now. We've had most of the stuff that they vaccinate for now. Like, yeah, so we survived. So that's why you want to think through some of the issues. One is, is this lethal? Is it catastrophic if you get the disease to try and prevent? Some of these things they're trying to prevent. It's like, why are you going to risk this? And I'll admit, chickenpox, why would you do that? And over a lot of the other ones where you're not at risk, but they want to give it to you anyways. So those are things to think through. That's part of medical ethics and you have the right to refuse those things. Now it may have implications. You may have those, that's why I started off is that you may have society, societal functions so you can't participate. Your kids can't go to public school. If you don't have all these lists of vaccines, you might say, good, we're not gonna send them anyway, right? We're homeschooling. In New York though, they've already went through all the way to the top courts with this. Yeah, you could force even in religious settings to get the measles vaccine. So that was forced upon the Hasidic Jewish community. They weren't in public schools, but they were still forced upon them. Now they generally resist it still, then we're going to obey it. But we have a state that's here that's coercive. Coercion is a medical ethic violation to begin with. You also have a, to me, it's always been a very simple thing. If this vaccine is so effective as you say it is, then if I don't get it, who's at risk? Me. That's not your business, right? So you're starting to trample on some basic things that we have as humans. I have the right to walk with God as I believe best because of conscience sake. Okay. Not cow towing to government mandates that actually are contrary to basic medical ethics. And that's why I've been trying to work this through where we did or we're getting. So now we'll get, we'll get to the fun one. MRNA technology. Okay. All right, so messenger RNA. Anybody do some study on how this is supposed to work? have used genetically engineered molecules to teach cells to make a protein that belonged to a specific virus. So it's supposed to replicate and spread. Yeah. So your messenger RNA will tell your cell to code certain proteins. So including an immune response, if your cell will produce certain proteins, that is part of your immune response against the protein and the virus. So messenger RNA is something that our body produces. So this technology is supposed to take snippets of that messenger RNA that will code for a particular protein. So if they can get it into your cell, your body will produce that protein, which will counteract a particular protein in the virus. That's the idea. But to get that mRNA into your cell takes a lot, including encapsulating this mRNA snippet. It's not the full thing, it's just a portion. Encapsulate it so it can actually get into you. The capsule itself is going to have problems with, it's going to interact with you. Then you've only coded for one protein, and your body will code if it's an actual vaccine or you have immunity because you already had the disease, is very complex and multifaceted. including lymphocytes, T-cells, that actually will attack the virus itself, not just code for one particular point. Now, if the COVID-19, quote, unquote, vaccines, because they were not vaccines, the actual proper name for them is Genetic Modification Interventional Medical Product. So GMIMP. General Motors demon. I don't know. So that's actually, it's a genetic modification, interventional medical product. It was not a vaccine. They changed the definition so they could call it that. And most people call it a Vax. All right. That was what was being pushed. It was being pushed out as a EUA. emergency youth authorization, even though it was already demonstrated early on that ivermectin was a little later, but hydroxychloroquine was very effective in keeping the disease at bay. So we already had products that were known entities and already demonstrated safe. Hydroxychloroquine by that time had been around for 65, I think it was, 65 years. We knew its danger levels. We knew all about it. So you had problems. The carrier to get that RMNA strand also created its own havoc within the body. And a lot of it was unknown because that had never been tested at all. It had been tested. No, the carrier of the, they kept changing the outer coating, which is why it had to be kept frozen. Then you had a problem of, Manufacturing, manufacturing was not well done with consistency and some were, in their view, effective and some were worthless because they already degenerated. If they had been out too long from the deep freeze, they degenerated quickly and would not do anything for you except harm you. It was also known that there were problems in it. like clotting was the number one, which is why I always called it the plot shot, is because that was the number one known side effect, it would cause clotting. I didn't say blood clotting, I just said clotting, because they actually weren't blood clots. It was a different protein strand, okay? The mRNA technology coded for one protein that would attach to the spike on the particular virus, which is one function. only one. That's how it was designed. And so this was played up as going to be very effective. It went as a EUA because there had not been time to do all the testing necessary. It takes years to do this. So it was pushed out from that point. So giving you that, that was its basis. That's why it was giving this. It was experimental. And actually, it still is. And so the time period still hasn't passed for full testing. And now I don't know how in the world they could test it except corruption in the FDA to even say it could be, because it doesn't meet the criteria. So the world was the clinical study, but they didn't follow up and keep the data. All right. So the question was, was it legal to mandate them? Absolutely not. Which is why eventually it was turned out over in the courts after most of the population received it. Okay, now I got follow-up questions on this. If you don't have a medical science background in order to do your own research, like Diane and I were able to do for a proposed medical treatment, what general factors can help you determine whether to pursue such a treatment or not? How would you go about that? Ask people who know, right? Or to refer you to articles and information. Start asking now, but the question is, so ask people you know, but how do you know they know? Because this was a problem early on. Most people were asking their doctor. They trusted their doctor. Their doctor said, Well, this is what the FDA is saying. This is what the National Institute of Health is saying. So, okay, here you go. They didn't recognize you really can't trust the FDA or NIH, which at one time you could, but you can't now. So there are some basic things. Let me give you some help with this one, all right? So you don't feel like lost and I have to become a medical expert to do this stuff or become an expert in science if you know what to do. So one, look for evidence of actual and proper medical testing. That's not as hard as it sounds. Actually look to see, is there anything that they're saying? It actually has been tested. That was your first point of research. When you found out the research on it were earlier versions tested, like, wait a minute. Well, they did testing for a while. MRMA. Well, just to find a COVID vaccine even in 2002, but every animal, because you have to go through two animals by law to test a drug. And it takes 10 to 15 years to get a vaccine or a drug on the market with all the testing you have to do. So then you go to people if all the animals survive. So all the animals died. because of antibody enhancement, which we see that with some of the deaths now, but this is mRNA. It's a different, they were not testing mRNA back in 2002. So on this one, this was actually fairly simple because it was being put out as a EUA. So you already know, they haven't done the testing. So you'd like to look for that first. That would be one of the things you're gonna look for in anything, right? Another one that's easy to look for, is there government coercion in this? Are you being coerced to do it, or are you trying to be persuaded? There's a big difference between the two. All right, if there's coercion, you already know, red flag something, something's wrong here. If the product is that good, you don't have to coerce people. They'll flock to it. They'll pay you extra. You don't have to pay for them. They will want it. Okay. Look for the advocation. If they are going to try and persuade you, what is the basis of that? Is it because I work for the NIH, I'm with the FDA, I have all my, look at all my degrees beside me? Instead, is it peer tested, reviewed? What do other doctors say about that? So part of the news high part of the coercion would be the suppression of other medical experts or experts in that field. You're not allowing them to speak. If you're seeing that going on, red flags should be in your mind or waving or something, but there's a problem. What's the problem? That's when you're going to keep trying to find out, OK, what are alternative sources of information? Where can I find this information? Right. When this started coming out, coming on like a flood, when I was going to appointments with doctors and asking about it, when they started to tell me, I cannot share, I have no opinion. That was a red flag for me. Like, what you mean you can't say? And then it got to a point they were like, oh, well, I may lose my license, so I'd rather not talk about it. And it's coercion, and that's enough to say there's a problem here. I have to dig in more. When media will hype the disease and it's dangerous to you, And that's what triggered me when I first started looking at it, when it actually was first becoming in the news at all. I looked at what was happening in Italy where the first outbreak, serious outbreaks, and seeing that the average age of death was, I think it was 82 or 83. No kids were getting it. And yet they were hyping it as it's going to wipe out the planet. Like, okay, something's not right here. That was what I saw first. So those are just some simple things. You don't have to be an expert to be able to see there are problems being developed here. One thing that's a good go-to is like the American frontline doctors put out a great white paper on the vaccine and they keep changing it as it as things have happened, but they all go back. You can just click and go back to the original documents. So you can click and go back to the clinical trials of 2002. You can click and go back to this and that. But if you use Google, you will not get anything. And that's the mistake that I made. I told my doctor to- Let's look it up. Look up American Frontline Doctors white paper and he did, but he did it on Google. And so he had no information going back to the original documents. If you get DuckDuckGo or- You have to find an alternative. You can go back, you can do it all. You can see everything. But because it's very, very reputable and very, It's easy, you know, and it's all the information. You're not just taking somebody's opinion, you're looking at the studies. Because they did the same thing with remdesivir, it was EUA too. They did two clinical studies for remdesivir, which was the big drug they were only allowed to use in the hospital to treat COVID. Colin was telling me, well, that's just telling me how he was having to give it and see the results. It was thrown out of both clinical studies because it killed more people than any of the other drugs. And yet it was the only one Fauci said that they could use. So there's a lot behind this, but if you use Google, you will not get good information. you really won't. Google is, they've drank the Kool-Aid. So you've got to go to more independent, like DuckDuckGo or something that's not going to censor. So you want to find someone who can help you. So Diane's always a good resource for some of these things, but you need to find those who can trust. That's why medical ethics was important. What are the medical ethics of your doctor? will they actually tell you the truth, which is what clued you in. There's a problem here. They won't be honest with me. So these are things, you don't have to have a medical background like Diane or a science background like mine to be able to see these things. They're gonna show up, but you have to be looking for them. You have to go against the herd. Let me run through- If you look at the shareholder meeting minutes of the vaccine companies, Like, I don't know, like how it didn't become public knowledge that I think it was 21 or 22, like Pfizer actually paid money off for using modern slavery, child labor and the production of the vaccines. So, I mean, if that's the links that they're going to. Well, that'd be another one is the company producing what, what they've been through. Pfizer, by that point, had done a lot of lawsuits where they had paid off people for the- And Moderna. And Moderna. Tens of thousands of dollars every year for fraud. Fraud. For the last 15 years. So that's a good clue too. So there's a lot of ways you can do that. Let me finish up because we're past time. Number 12 here. Well, medical advice. You can't give medical advice unless you have a medical license, but you can get people to question things. You're free to talk about that. You're free to point them to alternative sources. You're free to say, well, if I was in this situation, this is what I would do, but you're not a doctor and you don't have a medical license, you can't do that, but you can get people to question, which is what I'm doing. I'm getting you to question. 12, reading the fine print. Just a couple of points here. Read those things you signed. before you get a shot, okay, they usually have information. I asked consistently people who had gotten the COVID vax if they had read the material. Only one person had. Of everyone I asked, only one. But it was blank, wasn't it? Wasn't it blank? No, it wasn't blank. It told you exactly what rights you were signing away, which was everything. Everything, yeah. Okay. To get it, you had to sign this waiver. And the waiver was, I release the manufacturers, developers, those who were giving you the shot from all liability should anything happen to me, it lists out of the major problems they had, all known, and then said any other unknowns. And you waived all of that. that people were just, yeah, okay, I signed it. They did not know it was there. Read the fine print. There's close to hospital admissions. Read the fine print there. You may find that some hospitals actually have a coercion factor in it, which would include things like they want the right to be able to give you any vaccine they want, should they deem it medically needed. Without your consent. So you have to be careful now. We're not in a period where we could trust things like we used to. read the fine print, see what you're signing away. On the hospital authorizations, you may want to put right on the side, you know, or underline it with is, I do not authorize any treatment that I have not specific authorized my proxy. In other words, remove their blank. So that was one. And then the last one, I had a, I think it was a 10 page letter I put out. which is what I would send if people asked me for a religious exemption with the COVID-19. And within that, there's a lot of good information about how do you fight some of these things. Because I gave the reasons, moral reasons, why a person should not be required to get this shot. And nobody that I wrote a letter to was the Pew. I already had research to know how they were refusing, so I attacked them directly on the basis of their refusals. But it really kind of comes down to there's a moral issue of origin and manufacturing. There's a moral issue in lying and participating in fraud. And there's a moral issue in I have responsibility because my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, the temple of God, of treating it correctly. So I must be able to assess risks and benefits. And I could not do this with a mandate that you can't do that. I have to assess that. So I address all those. Or you get all your employees together. Or you get all your employees together and we say, we're all going to go on strike if you require this. So when it comes to like the COVID-19 crisis, a mandatory shutdown if we had to face this again of non-essential businesses, I'd ignore and fight against it. And mandatory shutdown of churches, I'd ignore it and fight against it. Mandatory mask and social distancing, were facial masks helpful? I don't know, some people probably looked a little better with them. Maybe, I don't know. Yeah, I'd ignore and fight against it. mandatory quote-unquote vaccination. I didn't want to fight against it. Mandatory quarantine of those who are sick. That's kind of important. That's proper. That should be done, okay? I'd follow it, I'd encourage it. We did. If you're sick, please stay home. Restrictions on medical treatments have been proven safe for other medical conditions, have shown at least anecdotal effectiveness in preventing or treating the current epidemic disease. I'd advocate for it. So that would be like the hydroxychloroquine or the vitamin regimes or things like that, is try to encourage people, build up your immune system the best that you can. Take some vitamin D, it's winter. You're not producing it yourself. Medical screening for participation in social events, proper medical screening, all right? Are you sick? But not, you have to have proof of your vaccination. So do that, okay? The case studies follow what we talked about. So I hope that's helpful. There's medical ethics, it's a big area. There's books and books and books written on this stuff. It's the stuff that's conferences go on and on about any of these finer points, but that should give you kind of a basis of some of the stuff we've been thinking through of how men are appropriate. God has given us direction, and he's given us a box of rules about ourselves, how we're gonna treat it, try to maintain our health, okay? At a later time, because I was asked to add in more about diet and that stuff. I had too much for one night. Maybe later, we'll put that in there. Okay, what kind of food should you eat? Should you be eating toxic chemicals because they're pretty and blue in your Jell-O? Probably not. Why would you eat blue Jell-O? And red Jell-O that's fluorescent, I don't think that's probably very good either. So that'll be for another subject, but hopefully this gives you something to start thinking about or how to work through some of these issues. You don't have to be an expert, have to be inquisitive. Okay, any last comments, my dear? When was the, like the time era where there was a drastic shift in the medical field? It's been coming on slowly. So it's done progressively? It's been progressive. I'm trying to think when some of the, Democratic O's were changed. Some were as early as the late, like the 40s, but major changes were made in a lot of places in the 60s. And then more recent ones, even in the 2000s, there were changes. With Obamacare, that brought a lot because the government put so many regulations on doctors that they had to flock together to join big like premier medical or whatever, and very few can afford to stay in business by themselves. So they have to hire extra people to do all the government paperwork. And then hospitals to save money because of COVID, they didn't do any elective surgeries, which is where they make a lot of money. So they stopped hiring doctors and they hired mostly physicians assistants. And they are not doctors. They, they are really not. It's a two year program. And so it's so my dad, our doctor won't even go there anymore to the hospitals because mostly it's because there's like one doctor in a whole hospital and that everybody's working as like a Medical tech. A tech, medical tech. And knowing like if you're an automotive person, like a parts replacer instead of a master mechanic. And so a lot more people are not doing well when they go to those hospitals. You go down to Cornell or New York Pres, they have doctors, but not maybe as many, but they have a lot of doctors. But up here, you know. Do you know anything about military health care, like military hospitals on big bases and stuff. I've worked at two of them. Oh, but he knows a lot. Right, so like even at West Point, we would call that Keller. It's called Keller Army Hospital, but we call it Keller. A lot, there were just so untrained, they are using you as their training material to get better. So no, don't do that. But it's not, you gotta learn on somebody. Right. Yeah, don't do that. Yeah. So a lot of my care, especially for me specifically, has been outside of the system, right? And then when I need to bring those paperwork back in, like for my disability, then I'll do that because there's, it's a different ball game when you're dealing with military or government hospitals, right? Yeah. Oh, don't. Like when presidents get shot, they've gone to Annapolis and that's a good, decent hospital, but I've worked at two VAs and they're not, they weren't, They're just not the caliber. The government is super cheap when it comes to. Right. And they have their agendas. And so just like how Pastor was talking about, let's say like with PAs, it's like, you are 15 minutes in here, five minutes introductory, five minutes we figure out, five minutes you out the door, you are only telling me one problem, you will have another appointment for another problem. And that's, it just keeps going like that. One thing too, for any hospital or any healthcare thing, whether you're in Medicare, in an Advantage plan, or limited to certain group, because you have an HMO or something, you learn to work the system. And if you learn to work the system, you can get by just about anything, but you have to learn to work the system. Like Mary, my adopted mom, was in the hospital, in a nursing home actually, and she got terrible pain on her neck. And I said, She needs to see somebody because she had an infection and it was hot and I could tell it was an infection. And I didn't know what it was. And there was an LPN working in the, they had one LPN in the whole house place. And I said, she needs to see a doctor today. And he said, she's the nurse said, well, we have a doctor coming in next Thursday and it was Sunday. And I said, she needs to see a doctor right now. And I could see I was getting nowhere. So I just said, you know, You know, it's there. I mean, she's an LPS, so she's not all right. But I said, she could have mumps. Oh no, she would have been vaccinated. I said, she was born in 1924. She never got vaccinated for mumps. And can you imagine if a whole mumps epidemic was responsible for you not getting a doctor? Check her out. She had a doctor in an hour. And I knew she didn't have mumps. But I didn't say she had mumps. I just suggested that. But you have to learn to be very creative to get what you want. In other words, call Diane and have her come. She'll intimidate the staff. You'll get what you need. You stayed nice the whole way through. Well, when you started getting resistance in the beginning. Right. And with the VA, you can't learn to work the system. It's true. She's so good at that. She's had what doctors call her. daily or even more often because they know she knows what she's talking about and They don't want a lawsuit. We'd never threaten a lawsuit. That's the bottom line. We wouldn't sue, but we would never. We'd never go successful anyway. But we know the system. That's the point. Or you could do Uncle Rod's. Just bring in a side of beef for the guy, for the doctor. Bring in some nice steaks. He'd bring in a side of beef, steaks, filet mignon. He could just walk in the doctor's office and say, hey, can I see the doctor today? Oh, sure, Mr. Oh, sure. Please go sit down in this room so you can bribery works. Bribery works. Yes. So. That doesn't work for vegans, though. Yeah. Here, I brought you a nice bit of lettuce, eggplant, cauliflower encrusted. All right, well, let's pray and go home and get some sleep. Although, yeah, you seem pretty awake right now. Yes. Lying. Once I get in the car, I'm like. She's going to have to wake you up. She can't pick you up and carry you. Thank you, Father, for your blessings to us and that we have direction. We're now left to have to follow whatever the herd is doing. You've given us very clear direction about what is important, what's moral, what's immoral. And as we work through those principles into all the other areas of application, we have a better idea of what would be honoring to you. And then even fight for those around us for their proper care. In Jesus name. Amen. Right.