Health
Hospital wants to pull the plug on inhumanely neglected 23-year-old woman who is not brain dead
From LifeSiteNews
Montefiore Hospital in Brooklyn is neglecting Amber Ebanks, but experts who have seen the student say her body is functioning and that she could improve with proper treatment.
Amber Ebanks, a 23-year-old Jamaican business student, drove herself to Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx for elective surgery on July 30. But her procedure went awry, leading to an intraoperative stroke and brain swelling that worsened over time. Now, her family is fighting for Amber’s life while the hospital wants to pull the plug.
In February, Amber was found to have a ruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM), a tangle of abnormal arteries and veins in her brain. Thankfully, after the rupture she was able to return to life as normal. Her doctors recommended that she undergo an embolization procedure to clot off the abnormal blood vessels in her brain in hopes of preventing further rupturing and brain damage. Unfortunately, during the embolization procedure, one of the major arteries supplying blood to Amber’s brain was unintentionally occluded, and her procedure was also complicated by a type of bleeding around the brain called a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Thus, she was taken to the ICU, placed in a medically induced coma, and treated for brain swelling.
Just 10 days later, on August 9, her doctors declared her to be “brain dead.” But there were problems with this diagnosis. The Determination of Death statute in New York and the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) both state:
“An individual who has sustained either:
- irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or
- irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”
Amber Ebanks meets neither the first nor the second of these criteria. Her circulatory and respiratory functions continue: her heart is still beating, and her lungs are absorbing oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. And she does not have the irreversible cessation of all functions of her brain, since she is maintaining her own body temperature, which is a brain function.
Moreover, the new 2023 American Academy of Neurology brain death guideline indicates that metabolic derangements such as high serum sodium levels may confound a brain death evaluation. According to Dr. Paul Byrne, Amber’s sodium levels were very high prior to her brain death determination, with readings over 160meq/L (normal sodium levels range from 135-145 meq/L). Not only can high sodium levels cause abnormal brain functioning, but they can also cause blood vessels in the brain to rupture, causing more brain bleeding – the very problems that Amber’s doctors should be interested in preventing. Also, even though high levels of carbon dioxide are known to exacerbate brain swelling, her doctors have not been checking these levels or adjusting her ventilator settings to prevent such derangements.
In addition to her ongoing heart, lung, and brain functions, Amber has continuing liver and kidney function. And presumably she still has digestive function, even though the hospital has been refusing to feed her since she came in for her surgery on July 30th. A patient cannot be expected to improve neurologically without nutrition.
Not only is Montefiore Hospital refusing to feed Amber, it’s refusing to provide her with basic wound care and hygiene. When Dr. Byrne, a board-certified pediatrician and neonatologist and brain death expert, flew to New York to see Amber this past week, Amber’s sister Kay showed him a maggot she had removed from her sister’s hair. Referring to hospital personnel, Kay Ebanks said in an ABC News article, “They are some of the cruelest people I have ever known.” Most of Amber’s family lives in Jamaica, and her father has been struggling to get a visa in order to come and see his daughter. Meanwhile, the hospital actually suggested that family members say goodbye to her over the phone.
Dr. Byrne and Dr. Thomas M. Zabiega, a board-certified psychiatrist and neurologist, have both evaluated Amber’s case. They have submitted sworn affidavits that Amber Ebanks is alive, and believe that she has decreased blood flow to her brain causing a quietness of the brain known as Global Ischemic Penumbra (GIP). During GIP, the brain shuts down its function to save energy, but the brain tissue itself remains viable. Drs. Byrne and Zabiega recommend additional time and treatment such as adjusting Amber’s sodium and carbon dioxide levels and treating hormonal deficiencies. They have testified that with proper medical treatments she is likely to continue to live and may obtain limited to full recovery of brain functions, even possibly recovering consciousness.
And there are other health care professionals who are willing to help Amber heal. A long-term care facility on Long Island called New Beginnings has agreed to care for Ebanks for as long as her family would like. “Everybody needs hope. You can’t just give up. Can’t just take them off life support when she needs more time,” New Beginnings founder Allyson Scerri said.
Nevertheless, doctors at Montefiore Hospital are adamant that Amber is “brain dead” and want to disconnect her from her ventilator over the objections of her family. Despite the testimony of qualified doctors and experts, the judge assigned to her case is requiring that a New York-licensed physician be found to evaluate Amber and give testimony about her condition. Until then, Amber remains unfed, uncared for, and neglected in an American hospital, to the point of her sister having to remove vermin from her hair.
Amber Ebanks is very much alive despite receiving little to no ongoing treatment to assist with the healing of her brain. She does not meet the medical or legal criteria for death. All she needs are proper ventilator therapy, a balancing of her fluids and electrolytes, nutrition via a feeding tube, and hormonal replacement: treatments that are commonplace in medicine today. It is shameful that her family has had to beg for these treatments and even go to court to try to force the hospital to provide them.
Heidi Klessig, MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ harvesting and transplantation. She is the author of “The Brain Death Fallacy” and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.
Photo by Acceptable at English Wikipedia, ‘Two 1 mg pills of Hydromorphone, prescribed to me after surgery.’ [Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
By Alexandra Keeler
B.C. released new witnessed dosing guidelines for safer supply opioids. Experts say they are vague, loose and toothless
This February, B.C pledged to reintroduce witnessed dosing to its controversial safer supply program.
Safer supply programs provide prescription opioids to people who use drugs. Witnessed dosing requires patients to consume those prescribed opioids under the supervision of a health-care professional, rather than taking their drugs offsite.
The province said it was reintroducing witnessed dosing to “prevent the diversion of prescribed opioids and hold bad actors accountable.”
But experts are saying the government’s interim guidelines, released April 29, are fundamentally flawed.
“These guidelines — just as any guidelines for safer supply — do not align with addiction medicine best practices, period,” said Dr. Leonara Regenstreif, a primary care physician specializing in substance use disorders. Regenstreif is a founding member of Addiction Medicine Canada, an advocacy group that represents 23 addiction specialists.
Addiction physician Dr. Michael Lester, who is also a founding member of the group, goes further.
“Tweaking a treatment protocol that should not have been implemented in the first place without prior adequate study is not much of an advancement,” he said.
Witnessed dosing
Initially, B.C.’s safer supply program was generally administered through witnessed dosing. But in 2020, to facilitate access amidst pandemic restrictions, the province moved to “take-home dosing,” allowing patients to take their prescription opioids offsite.
After pandemic restrictions were lifted, the province did not initially return to witnessed dosing. Rather, it did so only recently, after a bombshell government report alleged more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were boosting sales by encouraging patients to fill unnecessary opioid prescriptions. This incentivized patients to sell their medications on the black market.
B.C.’s interim guidelines, developed by the BC Centre on Substance Use at the government’s request, now require all new safer supply patients to begin with witnessed dosing.
But for existing patients, the guidelines say prescribers have discretion to determine whether to require witnessed dosing. The guidelines define an existing patient as someone who was dispensed prescription opioids within the past 30 days.
The guidelines say exemptions to witnessed dosing are permitted under “extraordinary circumstances,” where witnessed dosing could destabilize the patient or where a prescriber uses “best clinical judgment” and determines diversion risk is “very low.”
Holes
Clinicians say the guidelines are deliberately vague.
Regenstreif described them as “wordy, deliberately confusing.” They enable prescribers to carry on as before, she says.
Lester agrees. Prescribers would be in compliance with these guidelines even if “none of their patients are transferred to witnessed dosing,” he said.
In his view, the guidelines will fail to meet their goal of curbing diversion.
And without witnessed dosing, diversion is nearly impossible to detect. “A patient can take one dose a day and sell seven — and this would be impossible to detect through urine testing,” Lester said.
He also says the guidelines do not remove the incentive for patients to sell their drugs to others. He cites estimates from Addiction Medicine Canada that clients can earn up to $20,000 annually by selling part of their prescribed supply.
“[Prescribed safer supply] can function as a form of basic income — except that the community is being flooded with addictive and dangerous opioids,” Lester said.
Regenstreif warns that patients who had been diverting may now receive unnecessarily high doses. “Now you’re going to give people a high dose of opioids who don’t take opioids,” she said.
She also says the guidelines leave out important details on adjusting doses for patients who do shift from take-home to witnessed dosing.
“If a doctor followed [the guidelines] to the word, and the patient followed it to the word, the patient would go into withdrawal,” she said.
The guidelines assume patients will swallow their pills under supervision, but many crush and inject them instead, Regenstreif says. Because swallowing is less potent, a higher dose may be needed.
“None of that is accounted for in this document,” she said.
Survival strategy
Some harm reduction advocates oppose a return to witnessed dosing, saying it will deter people from accessing a regulated drug supply.
Some also view diversion as a life-saving practice.
Diversion is “a harm reduction practice rooted in mutual aid,” says a 2022 document developed by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, a group of clinicians and harm reduction advocates.
The group supports take-home dosing as part of a broader strategy to improve access to safer supply medications. In their document, they say barriers to accessing safer supply programs necessitate diversion among people who use drugs — and that the benefits of diversion outweigh the risks.
However, the risks — and harms — of diversion are mounting.
People can quickly develop a tolerance to “safer” opioids and then transition to more dangerous substances. Some B.C. teenagers have said the prescription opioid Dilaudid was a stepping stone to them using fentanyl. In some cases, diversion of these drugs has led to fatal overdoses.
More recently, a Nanaimo man was sentenced to prison for running a highly organized drug operation that trafficked diverted safer supply opioids. He exchanged fentanyl and other illicit drugs for prescription pills obtained from participants in B.C.’s safer supply program.
Recovery
Lester, of Addiction Medicine Canada, believes clinical discretion has gone too far. He says take-home dosing should be eliminated.
“Best practices in addiction medicine assume physicians prescribing is based on sound and thorough research, and ensuring that their prescribing does not cause harm to the broader community, as well as the patient,” he said.
“[Safer supply] for opioids fails in both these regards.”
He also says safer supply should only be offered as a short-term bridge to patients being started on proven treatments like buprenorphine or methadone, which help reduce drug cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms.
B.C.’s witnessed dosing guidelines say prescribers can discuss such treatment options with patients. However, the guidelines remain neutral on whether safer supply is intended as a transitional step toward longer-term treatment.
Regenstreif says this neutrality undermines care.
“[M]ost patients I’ve seen with opioid use disorder don’t want to have [this disorder],” she said. “They would rather be able to set goals and do other things.”
Oversight gaps
Currently, about 3,900 people in B.C. participate in the safer supply program — down from 5,200 in March 2023.
The B.C. government has not provided data on how many have been transitioned to witnessed dosing. Investigative journalist Rob Shaw recently reported that these data do not exist.
“The government … confirmed recently they don’t have any mechanism to track which ‘safe supply’ participants are witnessed and which [are] not,” said Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been a vocal critic of safer supply.
“Without a public report and accountability there can be no confidence.”
The BC Centre on Substance Use, which developed the interim guidelines, says it does not oversee policy decisions or data tracking. It referred Canadian Affairs’ questions to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which has yet to clarify whether it will track and publish transition data. The ministry did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
B.C. has also not indicated when or whether it will release final guidelines.
Regenstreif says the flawed guidelines mean many people may be misinformed, discouraged or unsupported when trying to reduce their drug use and recover.
“We’re not listening to people with lived experience of recovery,” she said.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle
From the Brownstone Institute
If you want to argue that a mysterious factor X is responsible for the drop in fertility, you will have to explain (1) why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination.
In January 2022, the number of children born in the Czech Republic suddenly decreased by about 10%. By the end of 2022, it had become clear that this was a signal: All the monthly numbers of newborns were mysteriously low.
In April 2023, I wrote a piece for a Czech investigative platform InFakta and suggested that this unexpected phenomenon might be connected to the aggressive vaccination campaign that had started approximately 9 months before the drop in natality. Denik N – a Czech equivalent of the New York Times – immediately came forward with a “devastating takedown” of my article, labeled me a liar and claimed that the pattern can be explained by demographics: There were fewer women in the population and they were getting older.
To compare fertility across countries (and time), the so-called Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is used. Roughly speaking, it is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime. TFR is independent of the number of women and of their age structure. Figure 1 below shows the evolution of TFR in several European countries between 2001 and 2023. I selected countries that experienced a similar drop in TFR in 2022 as the Czech Republic.
So, by the end of 2023, the following two points were clear:
- The drop in natality in the Czech Republic in 2022 could not be explained by demographic factors. Total fertility rate – which is independent of the number of women and their age structure – dropped sharply in 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. The data for 2024 show that the Czech TFR has decreased further to 1.37.
- Many other European countries experienced the same dramatic and unexpected decrease in fertility that started at the beginning of 2022. I have selected some of them for Figure 1 but there are more: The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. On the other hand, there are some countries that do not show a sudden drop in TFR, but rather a steady decline over a longer period (e.g. Belgium, France, UK, Greece, or Italy). Notable exceptions are Bulgaria, Spain, and Portugal where fertility has increased (albeit from very low numbers). The Human Fertility Project database has all the numbers.
This data pattern is so amazing and unexpected that even the mainstream media in Europe cannot avoid the problem completely. From time to time, talking heads with many academic titles appear and push one of the politically correct narratives: It’s Putin! (Spoiler alert: The war started in February 2022; however, children not born in 2022 were not conceived in 2021). It’s the inflation caused by Putin! (Sorry, that was even later). It’s the demographics! (Nope, see above, TFR is independent of the demographics).
Thus, the “v” word keeps creeping back into people’s minds and the Web’s Wild West is ripe with speculation. We decided not to speculate but to wrestle some more data from the Czech government. For many months, we were trying to acquire the number of newborns in each month, broken down by age and vaccination status of the mother. The post-socialist health-care system of our country is a double-edged sword: On one hand, the state collects much more data about citizens than an American would believe. On the other hand, we have an equivalent of the FOIA, and we are not afraid to use it. After many months of fruitless correspondence with the authorities, we turned to Jitka Chalankova – a Czech Ron Johnson in skirts – who finally managed to obtain an invaluable data sheet.
To my knowledge, the datasheet (now publicly available with an English translation here) is the only officially released dataset containing a breakdown of newborns by the Covid-19 vaccination status of the mother. We requested much more detailed data, but this is all we got. The data contains the number of births per month between January 2021 and December 2023 given by women (aged 18-39) who were vaccinated, i.e., had received at least one Covid vaccine dose by the date of delivery, and by women who were unvaccinated, i.e., had not received any dose of any Covid vaccine by the date of delivery.
Furthermore, the numbers of births per month by women vaccinated by one or more doses during pregnancy were provided. This enabled us to estimate the number of women who were vaccinated before conception. Then, we used open data on the Czech population structure by age, and open data on Covid vaccination by day, sex, and age.
Combining these three datasets, we were able to estimate the rates of successful conceptions (i.e., conceptions that led to births nine months later) by preconception vaccination status of the mother. Those interested in the technical details of the procedure may read Methods in the newly released paper. It is worth mentioning that the paper had been rejected without review in six high-ranking scientific journals. In Figure 2, we reprint the main finding of our analysis.
Figure 2 reveals several interesting patterns that I list here in order of importance:
- Vaccinated women conceived about a third fewer children than would be expected from their share of the population. Unvaccinated women conceived at about the same rate as all women before the pandemic. Thus, a strong association between Covid vaccination status and successful conceptions has been established.
- In the second half of 2021, there was a peak in the rate of conceptions of the unvaccinated (and a corresponding trough in the vaccinated). This points to rather intelligent behavior of Czech women, who – contrary to the official advice – probably avoided vaccination if they wanted to get pregnant. This concentrated the pregnancies in the unvaccinated group and produced the peak.
- In the first half of 2021, there was significant uncertainty in the estimates of the conception rates. The lower estimate of the conception rate in the vaccinated was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy were unvaccinated before conception. This was almost certainly true in the first half of 2021 because the vaccines were not available prior to 2021. The upper estimate was produced by assuming that all women vaccinated (by at least one dose) during pregnancy also received at least one dose before conception. This was probably closer to the truth in the second part of 2021. Thus, we think that the true conception rates for the vaccinated start close to the lower bound in early 2021 and end close to the upper bound in early 2022. Once again, we would like to be much more precise, but we have to work with what we have got.
Now that the association between Covid-19 vaccination and lower rates of conception has been established, the one important question looms: Is this association causal? In other words, did the Covid-19 vaccines really prevent women from getting pregnant?
The guardians of the official narrative brush off our findings and say that the difference is easily explained by confounding: The vaccinated tend to be older, more educated, city-dwelling, more climate change aware…you name it. That all may well be true, but in early 2022, the TFR of the whole population dropped sharply and has been decreasing ever since.
So, something must have happened in the spring of 2021. Had the population of women just spontaneously separated into two groups – rednecks who wanted kids and didn’t want the jab, and city slickers who didn’t want kids and wanted the jab – the fertility rate of the unvaccinated would indeed be much higher than that of the vaccinated. In that respect, such a selection bias could explain the observed pattern. However, had this been true, the total TFR of the whole population would have remained constant.
But this is not what happened. For some reason, the TFR of the whole population jumped down in January 2022 and has been decreasing ever since. And we have just shown that, for some reason, this decrease in fertility affected only the vaccinated. So, if you want to argue that a mysterious factor X is responsible for the drop in fertility, you will have to explain (1) why the factor affected only the vaccinated, and (2) why it started affecting them at about the time of vaccination. That is a tall order. Mr. Occam and I both think that X = the vaccine is the simplest explanation.
What really puzzles me is the continuation of the trend. If the vaccines really prevented conception, shouldn’t the effect have been transient? It’s been more than three years since the mass vaccination event, but fertility rates still keep falling. If this trend continues for another five years, we may as well stop arguing about pensions, defense spending, healthcare reform, and education – because we are done.
We are in the middle of what may be the biggest fertility crisis in the history of mankind. The reason for the collapse in fertility is not known. The governments of many European countries have the data that would unlock the mystery. Yet, it seems that no one wants to know.
Author
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems
Eyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein
WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
“This is a total fucking disaster”
The stars are aligning for a new pipeline to the West Coast
Prime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act
Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate
-
illegal immigration2 days agoICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor
-
Uncategorized13 hours agoCNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Addictions5 hours ago
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail
-
Business3 hours agoCarney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts
-
Energy1 day agoLNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Entertainment1 day agoStudy finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy13 hours agoCanada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys