DR. PHILIP HAWLEY (Grant Medical Center). We have people who are terminal on aggressive life support measures. Clearly they are not going to survive. We are spending all this time and money taking care of them. They are suffering, and it’s completely inappropriate.

DR. GORDON: What people need to do is talk about this with their family, with their physician, in advance. If they get a life-threatening illness, a lot of times they won’t be able to. Maybe they won’t be coherent, or they’ll be on a life-support machine. They can’t express their wishes, then they put their family in a bind, so they feel guilty, they don’t know for sure, and then what often happens is the sort of default is, well, let’s do everything, as much as possible.

ROLLIN: And sometimes families disagree about what to do. It’s hard for some to let go, which complicates things further.

DR. HAWLEY: If we could get families to deal with this we would not have this problem. We feel we as physicians should be able to step in and say we’ve got to stop the madness.

Read it all.

DR. PHILIP HAWLEY (Grant Medical Center). We have people who are terminal on aggressive life support measures. Clearly they are not going to survive. We are spending all this time and money taking care of them. They are suffering, and it’s completely inappropriate.

DR. GORDON: What people need to do is talk about this with their family, with their physician, in advance. If they get a life-threatening illness, a lot of times they won’t be able to. Maybe they won’t be coherent, or they’ll be on a life-support machine. They can’t express their wishes, then they put their family in a bind, so they feel guilty, they don’t know for sure, and then what often happens is the sort of default is, well, let’s do everything, as much as possible.

ROLLIN: And sometimes families disagree about what to do. It’s hard for some to let go, which complicates things further.

DR. HAWLEY: If we could get families to deal with this we would not have this problem. We feel we as physicians should be able to step in and say we’ve got to stop the madness.

Read it all.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. Diabetics are at an unusually high risk of heart disease, heart attacks and strokes, so treating them intensively to sharply reduce blood pressure, cholesterol levels and sugar levels should be highly beneficial. But a decade of studies in thousands of patients show that is not the case.

Two new reports from a major nationwide trial called ACCORD released Sunday show that lowering either blood pressure or cholesterol levels below current guidelines do not provide additional benefit and, in fact, increase the risk of side effects. A third arm of the study, released two years ago, shows that lowering blood sugar levels excessively actually increases the risk of heart disease.

The results are very disappointing, researchers say, because they suggest that clinicians may have reached the limit for what they can do for diabetic patients without the development of totally new therapeutic approaches.

Read it all.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. Diabetics are at an unusually high risk of heart disease, heart attacks and strokes, so treating them intensively to sharply reduce blood pressure, cholesterol levels and sugar levels should be highly beneficial. But a decade of studies in thousands of patients show that is not the case.

Two new reports from a major nationwide trial called ACCORD released Sunday show that lowering either blood pressure or cholesterol levels below current guidelines do not provide additional benefit and, in fact, increase the risk of side effects. A third arm of the study, released two years ago, shows that lowering blood sugar levels excessively actually increases the risk of heart disease.

The results are very disappointing, researchers say, because they suggest that clinicians may have reached the limit for what they can do for diabetic patients without the development of totally new therapeutic approaches.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned evangelist “bulies” who attempt to convert people of other faiths to Christianity.

Dr Rowan Williams said it was right to be suspicious of proselytism that involves “bullying, insensitive approaches” to other faiths.

In a speech at Guildford cathedral, Dr Williams criticised those who believed they had all the answers amd treated non-Christians as if their traditions of reflection and imagination were of no interest to anyone. “God save us form that kind of approach,” he said.

But he added: “God save us also from the nervousness about our own conviction that doesn’t allow us to say we speak about Jesus because we believe he matters, we believe he matters, because we believe that in him human beings find their peace, their destinies converge, and their dignities are fully honoured.”

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned evangelist “bulies” who attempt to convert people of other faiths to Christianity.

Dr Rowan Williams said it was right to be suspicious of proselytism that involves “bullying, insensitive approaches” to other faiths.

In a speech at Guildford cathedral, Dr Williams criticised those who believed they had all the answers amd treated non-Christians as if their traditions of reflection and imagination were of no interest to anyone. “God save us form that kind of approach,” he said.

But he added: “God save us also from the nervousness about our own conviction that doesn’t allow us to say we speak about Jesus because we believe he matters, we believe he matters, because we believe that in him human beings find their peace, their destinies converge, and their dignities are fully honoured.”

Read it all.

Ms. [Janet] Marshall gave a brief history of FWMC’s work on human sexuality this past triennium. She reminded COGS that they had already stated their preference for a dialogue-focused General Synod that upheld the value of local, national, and international relationships.

Ms. Marshall then walked COGS through FWMC’s proposed process for discussing issues of human sexuality at General Synod. In the proposed format, General Synod would begin by “faithful reporting” of FWMC’s work in plenary, then break out into smaller discussion groups. Feedback from these groups would be collated and shared in plenary. The smaller groups would meet again for the same process of synthesis and shared plenary feedback. Finally a resolution would be shaped out of this feedback, and General Synod would vote on it.

COGS members discussed the proposed process. Some responded very positively. Others asked for clarification on who would draft the final resolution and whether there would be enough time for this process on the General Synod agenda.

One council member proposed that a motion-affirming the local option for dioceses to approve same-sex blessings-be brought to General Synod. COGS discussed this motion, but ultimately decided not to forward it to General Synod.

Read it all.

Ms. [Janet] Marshall gave a brief history of FWMC’s work on human sexuality this past triennium. She reminded COGS that they had already stated their preference for a dialogue-focused General Synod that upheld the value of local, national, and international relationships.

Ms. Marshall then walked COGS through FWMC’s proposed process for discussing issues of human sexuality at General Synod. In the proposed format, General Synod would begin by “faithful reporting” of FWMC’s work in plenary, then break out into smaller discussion groups. Feedback from these groups would be collated and shared in plenary. The smaller groups would meet again for the same process of synthesis and shared plenary feedback. Finally a resolution would be shaped out of this feedback, and General Synod would vote on it.

COGS members discussed the proposed process. Some responded very positively. Others asked for clarification on who would draft the final resolution and whether there would be enough time for this process on the General Synod agenda.

One council member proposed that a motion-affirming the local option for dioceses to approve same-sex blessings-be brought to General Synod. COGS discussed this motion, but ultimately decided not to forward it to General Synod.

Read it all.

The Rev. Alistair Begg’s theological interpretation of the Gospel of John, (Messages of faith, Saturday) has been sadly all too pervasive in Christianity for centuries. To continue to read this Gospel, or any of the Biblical canon, in such a superficial manner that it leads the reader to believe that “those who claim to know and honor God, but deny the truth of the deity of Christ, are deluded and dangerous” is to perpetuate a serious untruth about the essential nature of Jesus and his message. This untruth has resulted in a host of egregious behaviors by Christians toward others, including virulent anti-Semitism over the last two millennia.

Read it all.

The Rev. Alistair Begg’s theological interpretation of the Gospel of John, (Messages of faith, Saturday) has been sadly all too pervasive in Christianity for centuries. To continue to read this Gospel, or any of the Biblical canon, in such a superficial manner that it leads the reader to believe that “those who claim to know and honor God, but deny the truth of the deity of Christ, are deluded and dangerous” is to perpetuate a serious untruth about the essential nature of Jesus and his message. This untruth has resulted in a host of egregious behaviors by Christians toward others, including virulent anti-Semitism over the last two millennia.

Read it all.

As long as the U.S. national debt is entirely denominated in dollars, there is no risk that we will run into the sort of financial crisis that small countries often run into. What gets them into trouble isn’t the debt per se, but an inability to acquire sufficient foreign exchange with their own currency to service it. While the U.S. Treasury has never issued bonds denominated in foreign currencies, it is conceivable that it could be forced to do so if the dollar falls sharply and foreign demand for U.S. bonds wanes. That will be the point at which our debt problem becomes more than theoretical and we are really on the road to national bankruptcy.

Read it all.

As long as the U.S. national debt is entirely denominated in dollars, there is no risk that we will run into the sort of financial crisis that small countries often run into. What gets them into trouble isn’t the debt per se, but an inability to acquire sufficient foreign exchange with their own currency to service it. While the U.S. Treasury has never issued bonds denominated in foreign currencies, it is conceivable that it could be forced to do so if the dollar falls sharply and foreign demand for U.S. bonds wanes. That will be the point at which our debt problem becomes more than theoretical and we are really on the road to national bankruptcy.

Read it all.

When it comes to religion, people of faith are passionate about their beliefs, and at times, that passion can lead to conflicts with others of different religions.

However, sometimes with understanding can come peace.

With that idea in mind, the Solo Flight Singles Group of New Covenant United Methodist Church decided to host an event that would promote peace and understanding between faiths.

The group gathered together representatives from five different faiths ”” Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Christian ”” for an interfaith panel discussion at the church Tuesday evening.

“I think it’s important that we try to understand everyone,” said Bev Diaz, coordinator of the event. “We’re all coming to realize the world is getting smaller. We’re coming into contact with more faiths, and to have more peace, we need to understand and tolerate each other.”

Read it all.

When it comes to religion, people of faith are passionate about their beliefs, and at times, that passion can lead to conflicts with others of different religions.

However, sometimes with understanding can come peace.

With that idea in mind, the Solo Flight Singles Group of New Covenant United Methodist Church decided to host an event that would promote peace and understanding between faiths.

The group gathered together representatives from five different faiths ”” Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Christian ”” for an interfaith panel discussion at the church Tuesday evening.

“I think it’s important that we try to understand everyone,” said Bev Diaz, coordinator of the event. “We’re all coming to realize the world is getting smaller. We’re coming into contact with more faiths, and to have more peace, we need to understand and tolerate each other.”

Read it all.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning in which he made three “observations” regarding sexual abuse by people and in institutions of the Catholic Church. He also addressed dismissed as unfounded attempts to link the Pope to a decision to transfer a priest found to have committed sexual abuse when Benedict XVI was Archbishop of Munich.

The first of the three “observations” made by Fr. Lombardi was to point out that the “line taken” by the German Bishops’ Conference has been confirmed as the correct path to confront the problem in its different aspects.

Fr. Lombardi included some elements of the statement made by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch at a Friday press conference following his audience with the Pope. The Vatican spokesman highlighted the approach established by the German bishops to respond to the possible abuses: “recognizing the truth and helping the victims, reinforcing the preventions and collaborating constructively with the authorities – including those of the state judiciaries – for the common good of society.”

Read it all.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See’s Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning in which he made three “observations” regarding sexual abuse by people and in institutions of the Catholic Church. He also addressed dismissed as unfounded attempts to link the Pope to a decision to transfer a priest found to have committed sexual abuse when Benedict XVI was Archbishop of Munich.

The first of the three “observations” made by Fr. Lombardi was to point out that the “line taken” by the German Bishops’ Conference has been confirmed as the correct path to confront the problem in its different aspects.

Fr. Lombardi included some elements of the statement made by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch at a Friday press conference following his audience with the Pope. The Vatican spokesman highlighted the approach established by the German bishops to respond to the possible abuses: “recognizing the truth and helping the victims, reinforcing the preventions and collaborating constructively with the authorities – including those of the state judiciaries – for the common good of society.”

Read it all.

The plan, which will be submitted to Congress on Tuesday, is likely to generate debate in Washington and a lobbying battle among the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to give back spectrum the government wants to use for future mobile service.

The blueprint reflects the government’s view that broadband Internet is becoming the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the telephone and broadcast television industries. It also signals a shift at the F.C.C., which under the administration of President George W. Bush gained more attention for policing indecency on the television airwaves than for promoting Internet access.

According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.

Read it all.

The plan, which will be submitted to Congress on Tuesday, is likely to generate debate in Washington and a lobbying battle among the telecommunication giants, which over time may face new competition for customers. Already, the broadcast television industry is resisting a proposal to give back spectrum the government wants to use for future mobile service.

The blueprint reflects the government’s view that broadband Internet is becoming the common medium of the United States, gradually displacing the telephone and broadcast television industries. It also signals a shift at the F.C.C., which under the administration of President George W. Bush gained more attention for policing indecency on the television airwaves than for promoting Internet access.

According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.

Read it all.

A test of true character, perhaps, is the extent to which one is prepared to blame oneself. As such, the Western world’s response to this self-made “credit-crunch” has highlighted the hypocrisy of our so-called leaders, their refusal to face reality and, above all, their lack of character.

When sub-prime first hit, Hank Paulson, then US Treasury Secretary, said “this financial crisis was caused to a large extent by a failure to address the rise of the emerging markets and the resulting global imbalances”. Last autumn, European Central Bank boss, Jean-Claude Trichet, argued that “imbalances have been the root of present difficulties”.

Even Barack “Change We Can Believe In” Obama has stooped to play the blame game. “We cannot follow the same policies,” the President said on a recent trip to Asia, “that have led to global imbalances.”

The implication is that sub-prime, and the deepest Western recession in generations, wasn’t our fault. It was entirely unrelated to widespread financial fraud, political myopia and lax regulation. Central banks kept interest rates too low for too long, Western consumers went on a debt-binge and our governments spent like crazy ”“ but all that was nothing to do with us….

You probably find this analysis deeply suspect ”“ illogical and even crass. That’s because it is…..

Read it all.

A test of true character, perhaps, is the extent to which one is prepared to blame oneself. As such, the Western world’s response to this self-made “credit-crunch” has highlighted the hypocrisy of our so-called leaders, their refusal to face reality and, above all, their lack of character.

When sub-prime first hit, Hank Paulson, then US Treasury Secretary, said “this financial crisis was caused to a large extent by a failure to address the rise of the emerging markets and the resulting global imbalances”. Last autumn, European Central Bank boss, Jean-Claude Trichet, argued that “imbalances have been the root of present difficulties”.

Even Barack “Change We Can Believe In” Obama has stooped to play the blame game. “We cannot follow the same policies,” the President said on a recent trip to Asia, “that have led to global imbalances.”

The implication is that sub-prime, and the deepest Western recession in generations, wasn’t our fault. It was entirely unrelated to widespread financial fraud, political myopia and lax regulation. Central banks kept interest rates too low for too long, Western consumers went on a debt-binge and our governments spent like crazy ”“ but all that was nothing to do with us….

You probably find this analysis deeply suspect ”“ illogical and even crass. That’s because it is…..

Read it all.

So, ‘uniqueness’ and ‘finality’: we believe as Christians that because of Jesus Christ a new phase in human history ”“ not just the history of the Middle East or of Europe ”“ has opened. There is now a community representing on earth the new creation, a restored humanity. There is now on earth a community which proclaims God’s will for universal reconciliation and God’s presence in and among us leading us towards full humanity. That is something which happens as a result of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Uniqueness, yes, in the sense that this ‘turning of a historical epoch’, this induction of a new historical moment, can only happen because of the one event and the narratives around it. And finality? Christians have claimed and will still claim that when you have realized God calls you simply as human being, into that relationship of intimacy which is enjoyed by Jesus and which in Jesus reflects the eternal intimacy of the different moments and persons in the being of God, then you understand something about God which cannot be replaced or supplemented. The finality lies in the recognition that now there is something you cannot forget about God and humanity, and that you cannot correct as if it were simply an interesting theory about God and humanity.

We claim that there is a basic dignity and a basic destiny for all human beings, and we claim that in relationship with Jesus the Word made flesh becomes fully real. Expressed in those terms it is I believe possible to answer some of the moral, political and philosophical questions. And as I’ve indicated, to say any less than that leaves us with what I believe to be equally serious moral, political and philosophical questions. If we realize that not saying what we have said about Jesus involves us in saying there might be different destinies and different levels of dignity for different sorts of human beings, then, in short, to affirm the uniqueness and the finality of Jesus Christ is actually to affirm something about the universal reconcilability of human beings: the possibility of a universal fellowship.

Does this then create problems for dialogue and learning? Does it make us intolerant? Does it commit us to saying, ‘…and everybody else is going to hell’? First, in true dialogue with people of different faiths or convictions we expect to learn something: we expect to be different as a result of the encounter. We don’t as a rule expect to change our minds. We come with conviction and gratitude and confidence, but it’s the confidence that I believe allows us to embark on these encounters hoping that we may learn. That is not to change our conviction, but to learn. And I think it works a bit like this. When we sit alongside the Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, we expect to see in their humanity something that challenges and enlarges ours. We expect to receive something from their humanity as a gift to ours. It’s a famous and much-quoted statement in the Qur’an that God did not elect to make everybody the same. God has made us to learn in dialogue. And to say that I have learned from a Buddhist or a Muslim about God or humanity is not to compromise where I began. Because the infinite truth that is in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is not a matter which can be exhausted by one set of formulae or one set of practices. I may emerge from my dialogue as confident as I have ever been about the Trinitarian nature of God and the finality of Jesus, and yet say that I’ve learned something I never dreamed of, and that my discipleship is enriched in gratitude and respect.

Read it all.

So, ‘uniqueness’ and ‘finality’: we believe as Christians that because of Jesus Christ a new phase in human history ”“ not just the history of the Middle East or of Europe ”“ has opened. There is now a community representing on earth the new creation, a restored humanity. There is now on earth a community which proclaims God’s will for universal reconciliation and God’s presence in and among us leading us towards full humanity. That is something which happens as a result of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Uniqueness, yes, in the sense that this ‘turning of a historical epoch’, this induction of a new historical moment, can only happen because of the one event and the narratives around it. And finality? Christians have claimed and will still claim that when you have realized God calls you simply as human being, into that relationship of intimacy which is enjoyed by Jesus and which in Jesus reflects the eternal intimacy of the different moments and persons in the being of God, then you understand something about God which cannot be replaced or supplemented. The finality lies in the recognition that now there is something you cannot forget about God and humanity, and that you cannot correct as if it were simply an interesting theory about God and humanity.

We claim that there is a basic dignity and a basic destiny for all human beings, and we claim that in relationship with Jesus the Word made flesh becomes fully real. Expressed in those terms it is I believe possible to answer some of the moral, political and philosophical questions. And as I’ve indicated, to say any less than that leaves us with what I believe to be equally serious moral, political and philosophical questions. If we realize that not saying what we have said about Jesus involves us in saying there might be different destinies and different levels of dignity for different sorts of human beings, then, in short, to affirm the uniqueness and the finality of Jesus Christ is actually to affirm something about the universal reconcilability of human beings: the possibility of a universal fellowship.

Does this then create problems for dialogue and learning? Does it make us intolerant? Does it commit us to saying, ‘…and everybody else is going to hell’? First, in true dialogue with people of different faiths or convictions we expect to learn something: we expect to be different as a result of the encounter. We don’t as a rule expect to change our minds. We come with conviction and gratitude and confidence, but it’s the confidence that I believe allows us to embark on these encounters hoping that we may learn. That is not to change our conviction, but to learn. And I think it works a bit like this. When we sit alongside the Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, we expect to see in their humanity something that challenges and enlarges ours. We expect to receive something from their humanity as a gift to ours. It’s a famous and much-quoted statement in the Qur’an that God did not elect to make everybody the same. God has made us to learn in dialogue. And to say that I have learned from a Buddhist or a Muslim about God or humanity is not to compromise where I began. Because the infinite truth that is in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is not a matter which can be exhausted by one set of formulae or one set of practices. I may emerge from my dialogue as confident as I have ever been about the Trinitarian nature of God and the finality of Jesus, and yet say that I’ve learned something I never dreamed of, and that my discipleship is enriched in gratitude and respect.

Read it all.