It is becoming increasingly clear that the medical profession, hospitals, and legislators are the "front men" for the euthanasia movement. The discussion is moving away from assisted suicide and death with dignity to a new language of bio-ethics called the futile care theory.

Wesley J. Smith, author of Culture of Death: The Assault on the Medical Ethics in America, in an article in the July 23, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard defines the terms: "Futile care theory holds that when the doctor believes the quality of a patient’s life is too low to justify life-sustaining treatment, the doctor is entitled to refuse care as ‘inappropriate’ – even if the treatment is wanted." Said Smith, "It is the equivalent of a hospital putting a sign over its entrance stating: ‘We have the right to refuse service.’"

The proponents of this theory are not quacks or even the typical members of the Euthanasia Society but rather doctors and philosophers who are part of the establishment. Peter Singer of Princeton University, known for recommending that parents be allowed to determine if their baby is healthy and if not, to kill it, is a leader of this movement. Though considered radical, his views are not rejected by the academic community. In fact, what has been rejected is the core value of Western civilization: All human beings possess equal moral worth.

Proponents of the futile care theory often consider tube feeding as "futile" and "inappropriate." The purpose of artificial nutrition is to keep the body functioning. Says Smith, "futilitarians reject tube feeding not because it doesn’t work, but because it does. It is not the treatment that is futile but the patient."

If the patients or families threaten to sue, the hospitals are working to insure that the courts acquiesce to the futile care theory by establishing protocols that determine when treatment can be refused and by placing language in state and federal legislation that would give government approval to the theory. How widespread this has become is difficult to determine but medical journals have reported that several hospitals in Houston, Mercy Health Systems (Philadelphia Catholic Hospitals), and 24 out of 26 California hospitals have established such policies. One of the purposes of these policies is to thwart patients’ ability to obtain a court order to continue treatment.

Federal and state legislation is now being introduced that would explicitly empower doctors to deny life sustaining treatment. Senator Arlen Specter, a supporter of partial birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research, has introduced the Health Care Assurance Act which purports to expand health care for children and the disabled. Buried in the bill is a section which denies that treatment must be offered or that an individual may demand treatment that is "futile or not medically indicated."

New York has two bills pending that would implement the futile care theory. Some of the legislation applies to surrogate health care decision makers and allows a hospital ethics committee to approve or disapprove of treatment. Further, no member of the ethics committee would be allowed to testify as to the proceedings of the committee, empowering ethics committees to act in an atmosphere of secrecy and lack of accountability.

Because end of life care constitutes only 10% of the total health care expenditures, the establishment of futile care protocols is not the end but only the beginning. Once won, the next step will be to restrict "marginally beneficial care."

Illinois Right to Life Committee has been in the forefront of the battle against euthanasia, Health Care Surrogate Bills, Living Wills and the protection of life at all stages. It is extremely important for everyone to be informed of this next step in the Culture of Death and to mobilize your family and friends to prevent the passage of legislation that would establish the futile care theory.