Modern medical advances often solve one ethical dilemma while creating new ones. The question isn't just whether we can implement cutting-edge technologies, but whether we should—and what considerations must guide these momentous decisions.
Consider Japan's promising artificial blood trials, a direct response to their dramatically aging population and declining birth rates. With younger generations shrinking and fewer blood donors available, this innovation could extend blood shelf-life from weeks to years. Yet at $5,000-$9,000 per unit compared to $215 for donated blood, such solutions highlight healthcare disparities between wealthy and developing nations where blood supplies may only reach 40% of needed amounts.
Meanwhile, the average age of American mothers has risen to 27.5 years—reflecting a societal shift toward delayed parenthood. This seemingly innocuous trend carries sobering consequences: maternal mortality rates quadruple after age 40, infant mortality increases by 50%, and severe health complications rise significantly. Beyond statistics lie family dynamics as well—when parents have children later, grandparents may lack the energy to provide much-needed childcare support, creating cascading effects across generations.
Perhaps most disturbing is Philip Nitschke's latest proposal—an implantable chip allowing early-stage dementia patients to end their lives before cognitive decline progresses. This device would require daily deactivation, raising profound questions about autonomy, memory, and what constitutes informed consent when someone's mental capacity fluctuates. Is forgetting you once wanted to die a problem requiring technological intervention, or a blessing that allows continued experiencing of life?
These technological developments reflect deeper societal values. Whether discussing artificial blood, delayed parenthood, or end-of-life technology, we face fundamental questions about how we value human life at various stages and conditions. Join us as we navigate these challenging ethical intersections with compassion, critical thinking, and consideration of both scientific evidence and spiritual values.
SHOW NOTES:
Assisted Suicide Implant for Dementia Patients: https://tinyurl.com/22dcf5u2 accessed 6-7-25
Trials for Artificial Blood: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/japan-to-begin-clinical-trials-for-artificial-blood-this-year/
Average Age of U.S. Moms Giving Birth Rises: https://tinyurl.com/23fxth87 accessed 6-16-25
Find strength and courage in your faith at this year’s FEARLESS FAITH Conference. Inspired by Joshua 1:9, “Be strong and courageous,” join us Saturday, September 13, at Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School in Jackson, Wisconsin, for presentations on navigating life’s storms, understanding God’s peace, and engaging in crucial conversations about euthanasia, anorexia, abortion, prenatal genetic testing, and more. Hear powerful journeys of f
Find strength and courage in your faith at this year’s FEARLESS FAITH Conference. Inspired by Joshua 1:9, “Be strong and courageous,” join us Saturday, September 13, at Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School in Jackson, Wisconsin, for presentations on navigating life’s storms, understanding God’s peace, and engaging in crucial conversations about euthanasia, anorexia, abortion, prenatal genetic testing, and more. Hear powerful journeys of faith through loss and hope. Don’t miss this empowering event! $50 in person or $40 virtual. Register now: https://christianliferesources.com/resources/events/2025-conference/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jeff Samelson (00:19):
On today's episode with everybody.
But they're not being generallyreplaced or supplemented by
children being born.
They have a very low fertilityrate not the lowest, but very
low, very much below replacementlevels and generally speaking,
it's younger people who donateblood, which means that as the
(00:40):
population ages, there's goingto be a much greater desire or
need for donated blood thanthere will be people around to
donate that blood.
Paul Snamiska (00:51):
Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from
Christian Life Resources.
People today face manyopportunities and struggles when
it comes to issues of life anddeath, marriage and family,
health and science.
We're here to bring a freshbiblical perspective to these
issues and more.
Join us now for Life Challenges.
Christa Potratz (01:17):
Hi and welcome back.
I'm Krista Potratz and I'm heretoday with Pastors Bob
Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson,and today we're going to talk
about our monthly what'sTrending, our current events
episode.
We wanted to just start withthe we talked about it a few
months back a Georgia woman whowas on life support but was
(01:41):
pregnant, and we touched on theimplications of that.
But she's now, since hasdelivered her baby or they've
delivered it in the hospital,definitely a passive situation
there.
Yeah, so through C-section shehas now had the baby.
Jeff Samelson (01:57):
And again, as of today, I have a feeling, by the
time this airs, things will havechanged.
Today, you know, I have afeeling, by the time this airs,
things will have changed.
Now they're at the point ofdeciding okay, what do we do as
far as um, disconnecting herfrom, from the life support
which, uh, last I saw they nodecision had been made yet,
although it seems inevitable,given that she's been declared
(02:19):
brain dead and has been so forquite a few months now.
Obviously, the family that shehas is still very much holding
on, and now they have the youknow something joyful to attach
to that.
They have a new child to loveand to care for, just as that
woman would have loved to carefor that.
That child and I that's, that'sone of the real nice bright
(02:42):
spots here is at the hospital.
Even though it was nottechnically required to, it
still made sure that that childhad a chance at life and that
honored the mother's wishes anddesires, even though she was
brain dead.
Bob Fleischmann (02:55):
Yeah, and even though the child was delivered
quite premature, the child livesand would not have lived
otherwise.
Christa Potratz (03:02):
So I just wanted to give an update on that
story, and so another one thatwe wanted to talk about was
assisted suicide implant fordementia patients, and, bob,
this is one that you had broughtto our attention, and I think
it was in the article to thesame person that was behind the
pods that we had talked about ina previous episode too.
Jeff Samelson (03:26):
No relation to podcasting, just to be clear.
No.
Christa Potratz (03:29):
But these so-called death pods where you
could go in and, I guess, push abutton and gas would be
released, and so this, I think,came from the same person.
Bob Fleischmann (03:51):
Yeah, philip Nitschke created the death pod
and that was in Switzerland.
It was used at one time wecovered that on an earlier story
and Switzerland now has forbadeits use.
But he has been proposing animplantable chip for people who
have maybe early onstagedementia.
So the concern is that, beforeit gets too bad, they want to
(04:13):
give these people the right tohave this chip released like a
poison or something to bring anend to their life.
They're bringing an end totheir life and there's a lot of
ramifications, for how do youmake something like that work,
and you know the safetyprecautions of what they have
integrated into it, but it'sshowing you the direction that
(04:33):
everything is going.
There's a couple of things ofconcern Now.
Those of you who know me wellknow I'm a big, very big fan of
technology.
I love technology.
There's people always concernedabout the fact that you know
you have devices on your arm andin your pocket and in your home
that listen to you and give youthe weather and the time and
(04:54):
you can order things and allthat kind of stuff.
Well, they've been talkingabout implantable chips for
years.
You know, you just have to.
You don't have to carry awallet, you just, you know, wave
this, you know, chip in yourarm over the sensor and you've
paid for your purchases.
And if you got kidnapped orlost, we could find you.
They already do it with petsand so forth.
(05:15):
So for Nitschke to have come outand said you know, I think we
should be able to put thesechips in people so that their
life can come to an end.
They don't want to see itdeteriorate with advanced
dementia, I think he's going tofind again a circle of people
who are going to like the idea.
I'd read deeper on his plansand how he was going to do this.
He's going to use himself as aguinea pig, but he's only going
(05:38):
to use it with a saline or asalt solution.
And what it does is you know,you get this inserted in you and
then every day it sets off alittle bit of an alarm.
So you have to tell it no, no,not today.
You know, and you keep doingthis down the line.
And then it even has safetyprecautions that if you forget,
like I didn't hear the alarm,you know, can you imagine?
(06:00):
You know the panic.
Well, I didn't hear the alarm,I don't want this to go off, but
he's going to do that, and thenone day he's just going to let
(06:21):
it go off and see if thatautomatically releases the it.
Jeff Samelson (06:25):
So right now this sounds like Twilight Zone
nutcase, but I can guarantee you10 years from now it's going to
land in some legislativeinitiative someplace described
it, his latest invention wouldbe implanted into the person's
(06:45):
body, most likely in the leg,and fitted with a timer that
admits a beeping sound andvibration as a daily reminder to
deactivate it.
And before I read any further,I was just like, oh, I can't
imagine anything that could gowrong with that I know,
especially since you're givingthese to dementia patients.
(07:09):
Yeah, well, I mean old people.
They're hard of hearing,they've got all sorts of
different pains, especiallysince you're giving these to
dementia patients.
Protagonist wakes up groggy andfinds out that he's been
implanted with this thing andit's like if you don't do what
we say and check in every 12hours, we're going to set this
off and you're going to die.
(07:30):
It's like, okay, maybe that'sthe kind of thing where he got
the idea.
But the thing is, it's one ofthese things where it's a
solution looking for a problem,even if you accept the premise
that no longer wanting to live,but being prevented from taking
your own life that that's a realthing or should be.
If someone has reached a stageof dementia where he or she is
(07:55):
no longer aware or has forgottenthe desire that he or she once
had to not live this way, thenthere is no problem.
Once had to not live this way,then there is no problem because
there is no disconnect betweenthe individual's desires and the
individual's reality.
It's not a problem.
It's only a problem for thepast self, not for the present
(08:19):
self.
But again, what Bob mentionslike get people talking about it
.
Eventually they get used to it.
Christa Potratz (08:26):
Yeah, I think too.
The paragraph that jumped out atme too was when Nischke it says
says the proposal is meant toaddress a growing problem
Individuals with early stagedementia who support assisted
suicide but fear they will losecapacity before being able to
act, and kind of you know likewhat you were saying too, like
(08:47):
this growing problem that's outthere, that these people are
going to just forget, oh, that Iwanted to die, and that it's
our job, as like the goodSamaritans or society, to remind
them that they really wanted todie this way that they wanted
(09:17):
to have that control, that todaywas the day I was going to kill
myself.
Jeff Samelson (09:20):
But I got up and there was this thing that needed
to be done and this other thing, and then I got interested in
this thing and you know what, bythe time I got to the end of
the day, I had forgotten Iwanted to kill myself.
We would count that as a win, agreat big positive, not a
problem that she forgot shewanted to die.
But what's true with this25-year-old apparently isn't
(09:44):
true with a dementia patientthat if they wanted to die and
they forgot it, that's a problem.
Bob Fleischmann (09:51):
Now, one of the problems you get with assisted
suicide mentality is a lot oftimes even well-meaning
Christians will buy into thenotion that, well, it's not for
me.
But if they want to be that way, then fine, we can make it
legalized.
If they want to off themselves,let them go ahead and do that.
First of all, please don't beso simple as to think that way.
You create a tenor in societywhen this kind of stuff goes on.
(10:16):
You know, when Jack Kevorkiancreated this dumb little
three-bottle contraption, youknow, and created this dumb
little three-bottle contraption,you know, and led Janet Atkins
into the back of the van back inI think it was 1990 or 91, so
that she could end her life.
I mean, it was the stuff ofjokes.
People joked about it becauseeverything about it was a
rundown van.
He slept on a mattress on thefloor.
(10:36):
I remember reading the articlein the Detroit Free Press.
But the reality is today, notonly do we have a number of
states that have legalizedassisted suicide, maybe
sanitized it to some degree, butnow you get people, good people
, christian people, who begin tostart buying into the mentality
(10:58):
.
It has zero support inScripture.
No one's bothered to ask whatGod thinks about this, but
instead the religion that Nishkeis part of, which is humanism
it's all about us just keepspushing their religion on all of
us and then in the end we'regoing to find people led astray.
Christa Potratz (11:16):
Yeah, it'll be interesting.
I thought we had seen it allwith the death pods.
What comes next here?
Well, another article that wewanted to talk about was one
that Jeff had brought up, withtrials for artificial blood that
are being done, I believe, inJapan, right.
Jeff Samelson (11:32):
Yeah, this was interesting.
It's not something I had heardabout before and I realized I
should have heard about this.
This seems like a prettynatural kind of thing for people
to be looking into.
No-transcript are pretty goodabout donating blood and it's
(12:14):
fairly well distributed,although from time to time there
are going to be shortages orthey're not going to have enough
of the special type thatcertain people need and things,
but generally speaking, it's notat a crisis stage, but
generally speaking, in lowerincome nations, fewer people
donate their blood and so thosenations have to ration it.
They don't have enough.
(12:35):
They can't give it to all thepeople who might otherwise
benefit from having it whenthey're in the hospital or
having surgery or they've had anaccident or something like that
.
The reason why Japan inparticular, is looking into this
is what I found particularlyinteresting, which is that Japan
and I believe we've mentionedthis on this podcast before they
are aging rapidly and what thatmeans is that people are
(12:59):
getting old, which happens witheverybody, but they're not being
generally replaced orsupplemented by children being
born.
They have a very low fertilityrate not the lowest, but very
low, very much below replacementlevels and generally speaking,
it's younger people who donateblood, which means that as the
(13:20):
population ages, there's goingto be a much greater desire or
need for donated blood thanthere will be people around to
donate that blood.
And so by creating thisartificial blood they're going
to assuming that it works,whatever they're going to be
able to solve the problem of nothaving enough to do this and
one of the nice things, at leastone of the particular trials
(13:42):
they're trying it won't evenmatter what type of blood you
need, which will be a realbenefit as well.
Bob Fleischmann (13:50):
Typical blood can be stored 21 to 42 days and
there is another, a secondprocedure for creating what they
call artificial blood, whichinvolves taking cells out of the
bone marrow.
And the problem with that is,again, it only has a shelf life
of 21 to 42 days.
This new Japanese approachinvolves literally almost like
(14:14):
freeze-drying it and it has ashelf life of as little as two
years to several years.
And the only negative really ofit now from the way that
they're promoting it typicalblood costs about $215, and the
comparative amount of theartificial blood is about $5,000
(14:34):
to $9,000.
But they feel that with makingmore of it at one time it's
going to come along.
I think it has real promise andI liked when at one time it's
going to come along.
I think it has real promise.
And I liked when Jeff sent thenote around for us to look at
because he wrote it was a littlebit obscure.
It was kind of like.
I kind of liked the fertilityangle or something.
And so I'm reading the articleexpecting to see something on,
(14:57):
you know, like a boosted spermrate or something like that.
But no, it's actually it'sbecause it's a very practical
problem and you see itespecially in underdeveloped
countries where they only haveabout a 40% stock of what they
need.
I guess in developed countriesit's right around 70% or 80%,
(15:18):
but in undeveloped countriesit's like 40% stock percent, but
in undeveloped countries it'slike 40 percent stock, and so a
product like this and then youcombine that with like a South
Korean problem, which has thelowest fertility rate, or
Japanese problem, or even a USproblem because we have a below
replacement rate birth rate,this holds a lot of promise.
(15:38):
This is kind of one of thoseadvancements that you get kind
of excited about.
Christa Potratz (15:43):
Yeah, no, it was really interesting and I
think too like was it in thearticle as well, like it said,
you know, because in Japanspecifically, it was like how
you mentioned, like for 65 andup, is where they primarily use
(16:07):
the blood for those individuals,and I think was it like
underdeveloped countries or indifferent places where it's
typically like you use the bloodfor kids, that are five and
under right, and so that wasjust real interesting as well.
But I think you know anotherarticle then that we also wanted
to touch on that deals a littlebit with the fertility rate and
(16:27):
different things too is thatthe average age of US mothers
now giving birth is rising.
So I believe it maybe was about, or closer to, 25 years of age
back in I don't know maybe like10 to 15 years ago, but now it
has risen and is getting alittle closer to 30, right.
Bob Fleischmann (16:50):
Yeah, it's up to 27.5.
And I think one of the thingsto remember is that when the
average age is 27.5, that tellsyou you've got an increasingly
large number of mothers in their30s and even into their 40s.
And it raises questions aboutproblems.
Now, back when we were startinga family, everyone was talking
(17:12):
about.
You know, it gets reallydangerous after 35 to have a
child, because it can createproblems for the child and it
creates added risk for themother.
And that's where we are,because a lot of people have
wanted to get their career onboard, they've wanted to get to
know each other better beforethey have children.
(17:33):
You know even couples, whenthey you know we've talked
before about people who don'twant children but a growing
number of couples us pastors,when we've done pre-marriage
counseling, we've all heard ityou know where they.
Well, okay, we want to start afamily, but not yet.
You know those kinds of thingsand you've got to remember that
waiting quantifiably comes withrisks and you have to ask
(17:57):
yourself you know, how far am Iwilling to go with the risk?
And the risk is both to childand to mother and there are
obviously different kinds ofrisks, but they do affect both
and the numbers are astoundingreally.
They've always said that thebenchmark is under 30 or under
35.
(18:17):
You know, that's kind of likenormal.
And they say that infantmortality for birth mothers 35
to 39 goes up to 6.5 deaths per1,000 births.
Okay, and then if you're abirth mother between 40 to 49,
that number rises almost 50% to9.3.
(18:41):
But let's talk maternalmortality.
If you're a mother, the chancesof you dying in childbirth
between the ages of 25 and 39 is3.1 out of 10,000 births.
So it's pretty nil.
If you're over the age of 40,that now rises to 13.9 out of
(19:08):
10,000 births.
So that number quadruplesreally.
And then severe maternalmorbidity, which is like really
health complications.
From 35 to 39, a mother has17.9 out of 1,000 births.
She's going to have someproblems.
If she's 40 to 44, that jumpsto 23.
(19:30):
So the numbers are always goingup and you have to be aware of
it.
And the statistics in this casestatistics don't lie.
You either live or you die.
Either the baby is born aliveor the baby dies.
Either the mother dies or themother lives or the mother has
complications.
These are fairly solidstatistics.
(19:51):
I'm not aware of anybodyquestioning them.
That depends on whether it wasa full moon or a half moon or
all sorts of other crazy things,and so it's alarming.
And as a father who had all ofhis children young, you know my
five daughters were born beforeI was 30.
I'm having a grand old timewith my grandchildren who are
(20:15):
already in high school.
I mean it's just, it's a funexperience.
So I mean there is that addedincentive to still have them
young.
I would say I got my careerpretty much on track still with
that kind of schedule.
The point is is that we'reinterested in doing what is safe
, and this is something you havesomething to do about.
I mean, you make a consciousdecision to wait and you've got
(20:39):
to balance it out.
Is it at what cost decision towait?
Jeff Samelson (20:42):
and you got to balance it out.
Is it at what cost, chris?
I mean I think we can assumeyou're probably a bit more
likely to be in tune withyounger women and what they're
thinking and such.
Do you think that it'sgenerally understood or even
known by you?
Know women age 25 and older howmuch the risks increase when
(21:03):
they put off having childrenuntil later?
Christa Potratz (21:44):
And so as I started kind of nearing that age
with my final pregnancy and hadother friends in similar areas
and stuff, then you are moreaware of that, you like see more
celebrities like having babieslater and stuff, you just kind
of think, oh, you're not reallythinking about the risk.
And that's not really somethingthat I think people that is
made known to people.
Bob Fleischmann (21:59):
And people do play the odds.
I mean they.
And then, plus, to justremember this, a lot of the
celebrities they didn't have,their babies, just remember this
a lot of the celebrities theydidn't have their babies.
Christa Potratz (22:09):
They hired somebody to have their babies.
No, and what we kind of maybeforget too with with like
younger people I mean peoplethat are in their twenties and
like early twenties and stufftoo those people are amazing.
They can just do more.
I could do more when I was inmy 20s and so raising kids and
(22:30):
going to school or raising kidsand having a, starting your
career and that type of thingthose people are amazing and
they have.
They have the energy to do ittoo, and so they're just.
There is more, more energy.
I think that the younger momshave too.
Jeff Samelson (22:48):
And just connecting some, some dots here.
Bob talked about, you know,having kids young enough to now.
You know he.
You know, before he's a toomuch of a geezer he can still
play with his.
Christa Potratz (22:59):
Those were your words, right.
Jeff Samelson (23:00):
You know, enjoy the company of his grandchildren
.
That's another one of thethings that people are not
forgetting, because it's notjust that as you age, you get
less energy.
Your parents definitely haveless energy, and one of the
things the article mentioned wasthat lack of childcare is one
(23:21):
of the things that, oraffordable childcare is cited as
one of the reasons that peopleput off having kids Because it's
like, well, we can't afford itwhen we're too young.
But the thing is, by waiting solong to have children, you
eliminate having your parents,the kids' grandparents as help
for your child care situation,because they no longer have the
(23:43):
energy to watch your kids theway they would have if you had
had your kids when they werestill in their 50s or early 60s.
I don't see those dotsconnected very often and they
probably should be.
Bob Fleischmann (23:55):
There's not a biblical mandate that says by a
certain age you should havechildren.
But when we gather this kind ofinformation, we become aware of
it.
You know, we just kind of askourselves you know, kind of it's
kind of everything else.
I mean, you use some logic whenyou decided to wait having
children because of my career,okay, well then that same logic
(24:16):
has to scoop in the additionalinformation that it becomes more
dangerous for you and the child.
And right now we're justsharing this with you, so you
know.
Christa Potratz (24:26):
The last thing that we kind of wanted to touch
on today too, was what RFK Jr isdoing to the vaccine
establishment.
So I think our listeners willbe interested to know what's
going on with that.
Jeff Samelson (24:43):
Those people who are vaccine skeptics are
probably cheering all of this.
But we're not vaccine skepticshere.
We are certainly in favor ofbeing careful, being
well-informed and such, but alot of the things that people
point to to say, aha, this iswhy vaccines are bad, this is
why nobody should have them, orwhy all these recommendations
(25:04):
are off.
A lot of that's based on eitherno science at all or bad
science and in many cases alsobad theology and not maligning
anybody who has strong feelingsor convictions about these
things.
People can make their decisionsor whatever.
But when we're talking at thenational level of policy and
what is not simply just what isprovided by the government, but
(25:28):
also what is what informationthe government puts out there,
what recommendations it's ableto make and things like that
what it's able to make possibleor available, that's not just a
decision you're making foryourself, I mean, that's made
for everybody.
And so it's of concern that alot is being done right now to
(25:50):
undo what has been put intoplace in the past for the
nation's good.
Bob Fleischmann (25:56):
You know it's interesting because during the
pandemic and everything, when weat Christian Life Resources
released our statement onvaccines, a lot of terrible
things were said and got a lotof bad mail and that kind of
stuff.
I don't retract any of it thatwe wrote in it, but at the same
(26:24):
time I do find it interestingsitting in the bleachers
watching this going on inWashington, because I try, and a
lot of people, because everyoneeither reads what I write or
listens to what I say anddevelops a kind of a bias as to
how they think I am.
I think I'm far more objectivethan most people would give me
credit for, and that is so.
I'm watching this and I'm going.
So what if RFK is right?
Let's just say he's right.
(26:47):
So first thing he does is hefires the 17-member advisory
panel.
Okay, so I did a deep dive onthe 17-member advisory panel.
Do you know?
You can hardly identify whothey are.
It's almost like a secret, andsome of them were on the payroll
for some pharmaceuticals, which, of course, isn't part of the
(27:07):
controversy that's going on nowwith publishing papers and
finding out that you were beingfunded and stuff by a
pharmaceutical.
My point is okay, he may havehad an argument that we need to
clean house Now it wasn't likehe replaced them with experts on
vaccines and immunology andthat kind of stuff.
(27:29):
Not all of them were.
Personally, when I looked at thenew panel, I'm not going to say
I was too overly concerned.
I think media made more of itthan they should.
But I do have a problem in thatyou know, when you walk into
something presuming everythingwas fine and now you just came
(27:49):
and screwed it up or everythingwas wrong and now you're coming
in to make it better, you knowfinally, pretty much both sides
are wrong.
My flags go up whenever I seehouse cleaning, whenever they
throw them all out.
My flags go up whenever I seehousecleaning, whenever they
throw them all out, because Iremember counseling a synodical
president once.
I just said to him I go, Ithink you should form a kitchen
(28:12):
cabinet and I think you shouldput on it one or two people that
you absolutely cannot stand.
They're contrary to you oneverything, because you need
people like that to kind of keepyou balanced.
And I do think you know theanti-vax people based on what
they've written to me and stufflike that.
Some of them are just, theylack logic, they lack foundation
(28:35):
, they're more ideological thanthey are, theological, that kind
of stuff.
But at the same time some raisesome interesting points and I
think it's good to listen to himand I would hope that RFK Jr
would kind of like he had a17-member panel.
I think he's down to an eightor a nine-member panel.
It'd be nice if he brought backa couple of the other guys just
(28:58):
to keep it balanced a littlebit.
On a subject like this, youwant to have kind of a good
knockdown argument about it.
Again, I have not seen anythingpublished that has made me want
to take back what we wrote,what we released, but I do think
that they've offeredperspectives that need to be
looked at and I think RFK Jrcould do that if he's balanced.
(29:24):
But we'll see.
You know, I'm just I'm notconvinced yet that he's going to
be balanced.
Jeff Samelson (29:31):
His past life does not give much of a hint of
balance.
Bob Fleischmann (29:36):
He's said some good things since coming in A
few good things.
But yeah, his past being I, wasnot in favor of his selection
for it.
But we'll see.
Christa Potratz (29:48):
Do you think, just kind of like, given I don't
know, I mean you know, I meanTrump came in, you know very
much to going to clean house,going to just completely flip
everything over, I mean, do youthink that kind of played into
some of this too?
Or I mean, was that just kindof always how it was going to
kind of go with him?
Jeff Samelson (30:09):
I think it certainly kind of gave
permission to him.
You know the sense of well,they're doing this in all these
other departments.
I should be able to do it here.
You know whether he would havedone that regardless, I suspect.
Bob Fleischmann (30:24):
That he probably still would have done
it, but I think under the guiseof Doge and stuff like that they
were doing house cleaning.
There was enough outcry aboutvaccines that there does need to
be more transparency.
First of all, I wish some ofthe people who wrote me some
very harsh and nasty letterswould dig deeper.
(30:45):
I did, because some of thestuff they wrote me was just
plain, outright wrong and theywere just overlooking or seeing
what they wanted to see andignoring what they should see.
But at the same time, some ofthis information, like, for
example, it bothered me greatly.
Some of this information, like,for example, it bothered me
greatly when I set out to find.
I just wanted to know.
(31:06):
My question was who are the 17people on the panel originally?
Who appointed them and whatties did they have to companies,
you know, pharmaceuticals orwhat?
There were probably six oreight that I still could not
find.
It's just not out there.
It's just not out there, it'sjust not readily available.
That bothers me.
(31:28):
I mean, I'm sure somebody, ifthey're listening to it, could
probably find the list and giveit to me and so forth.
And there were some people whohad some ties to pharmaceuticals
.
Nothing much but some ties.
But you know, that's kind oflike checking out on my
(31:49):
objectivity on Scripture andfinding out.
If I have ties to a religiouschurch body, of course you're
going to have some ties to somedegree, so that doesn't
necessarily bother me.
But the transparency part youknow that I'm in favor of.
The problem is if someone'sgoing to come out against
vaccines and so forth.
You know I want the informationso transparent out there that
sometimes you have to dismisssome people as just not knowing
(32:09):
what they're talking about.
Christa Potratz (32:11):
That's all we have time for today.
I want to thank you both forall the information on these
different topics, and we thankall of our listeners too, for
joining us, and if you have anyquestions on any of these topics
, you can reach us atlifechallengesus, and we look
forward to seeing you back nexttime.
Thanks a lot, bye.
Paul Snamiska (32:34):
Thank you for joining us for this episode of
the Life Challenges podcast fromChristian Life Resources.
Please consider subscribing tothis podcast, giving us a review
wherever you access it andsharing it with friends.
We're sure you have questionson today's topic or other life
issues.
Our goal is to help you throughthese tough topics and we want
(32:54):
you to know we're here to help.
You can submit your questions,as well as comments or
suggestions for future episodes,at lifechallengesus or email us
at podcast atchristianliferesourcescom.
In addition to the podcasts, weinclude other valuable
information at lifechallengesus,so be sure to check it out.
(33:17):
For more about our parentorganization, please visit
christianliferesourcescom.
May God give you wisdom, love,strength and peace in Christ for
every life challenge.
On today's episode with everybody.
But they're not being generallyreplaced or supplemented by
children being born.
They have a very low fertilityrate not the lowest, but very
low, very much below replacementlevels and generally speaking,
it's younger people who donateblood, which means that as the
(00:40):
population ages, there's goingto be a much greater desire or
need for donated blood thanthere will be people around to
donate that blood.
Paul Snamiska (00:51):
Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from
Christian Life Resources.
People today face manyopportunities and struggles when
it comes to issues of life anddeath, marriage and family,
health and science.
We're here to bring a freshbiblical perspective to these
issues and more.
Join us now for Life Challenges.
Christa Potratz (01:17):
Hi and welcome back.
I'm Krista Potratz and I'm heretoday with Pastors Bob
Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson,and today we're going to talk
about our monthly what'sTrending, our current events
episode.
We wanted to just start withthe we talked about it a few
months back a Georgia woman whowas on life support but was
(01:41):
pregnant, and we touched on theimplications of that.
But she's now, since hasdelivered her baby or they've
delivered it in the hospital,definitely a passive situation
there.
Yeah, so through C-section shehas now had the baby.
Jeff Samelson (01:57):
And again, as of today, I have a feeling, by the
time this airs, things will havechanged.
Today, you know, I have afeeling, by the time this airs,
things will have changed.
Now they're at the point ofdeciding okay, what do we do as
far as um, disconnecting herfrom, from the life support
which, uh, last I saw they nodecision had been made yet,
although it seems inevitable,given that she's been declared
(02:19):
brain dead and has been so forquite a few months now.
Obviously, the family that shehas is still very much holding
on, and now they have the youknow something joyful to attach
to that.
They have a new child to loveand to care for, just as that
woman would have loved to carefor that.
That child and I that's, that'sone of the real nice bright
(02:42):
spots here is at the hospital.
Even though it was nottechnically required to, it
still made sure that that childhad a chance at life and that
honored the mother's wishes anddesires, even though she was
brain dead.
Bob Fleischmann (02:55):
Yeah, and even though the child was delivered
quite premature, the child livesand would not have lived
otherwise.
Christa Potratz (03:02):
So I just wanted to give an update on that
story, and so another one thatwe wanted to talk about was
assisted suicide implant fordementia patients, and, bob,
this is one that you had broughtto our attention, and I think
it was in the article to thesame person that was behind the
pods that we had talked about ina previous episode too.
Jeff Samelson (03:26):
No relation to podcasting, just to be clear.
No.
Christa Potratz (03:29):
But these so-called death pods where you
could go in and, I guess, push abutton and gas would be
released, and so this, I think,came from the same person.
Bob Fleischmann (03:51):
Yeah, philip Nitschke created the death pod
and that was in Switzerland.
It was used at one time wecovered that on an earlier story
and Switzerland now has forbadeits use.
But he has been proposing animplantable chip for people who
have maybe early onstagedementia.
So the concern is that, beforeit gets too bad, they want to
(04:13):
give these people the right tohave this chip released like a
poison or something to bring anend to their life.
They're bringing an end totheir life and there's a lot of
ramifications, for how do youmake something like that work,
and you know the safetyprecautions of what they have
integrated into it, but it'sshowing you the direction that
(04:33):
everything is going.
There's a couple of things ofconcern Now.
Those of you who know me wellknow I'm a big, very big fan of
technology.
I love technology.
There's people always concernedabout the fact that you know
you have devices on your arm andin your pocket and in your home
that listen to you and give youthe weather and the time and
(04:54):
you can order things and allthat kind of stuff.
Well, they've been talkingabout implantable chips for
years.
You know, you just have to.
You don't have to carry awallet, you just, you know, wave
this, you know, chip in yourarm over the sensor and you've
paid for your purchases.
And if you got kidnapped orlost, we could find you.
They already do it with petsand so forth.
(05:15):
So for Nitschke to have come outand said you know, I think we
should be able to put thesechips in people so that their
life can come to an end.
They don't want to see itdeteriorate with advanced
dementia, I think he's going tofind again a circle of people
who are going to like the idea.
I'd read deeper on his plansand how he was going to do this.
He's going to use himself as aguinea pig, but he's only going
(05:38):
to use it with a saline or asalt solution.
And what it does is you know,you get this inserted in you and
then every day it sets off alittle bit of an alarm.
So you have to tell it no, no,not today.
You know, and you keep doingthis down the line.
And then it even has safetyprecautions that if you forget,
like I didn't hear the alarm,you know, can you imagine?
(06:00):
You know the panic.
Well, I didn't hear the alarm,I don't want this to go off, but
he's going to do that, and thenone day he's just going to let
(06:21):
it go off and see if thatautomatically releases the it.
Jeff Samelson (06:25):
So right now this sounds like Twilight Zone
nutcase, but I can guarantee you10 years from now it's going to
land in some legislativeinitiative someplace described
it, his latest invention wouldbe implanted into the person's
(06:45):
body, most likely in the leg,and fitted with a timer that
admits a beeping sound andvibration as a daily reminder to
deactivate it.
And before I read any further,I was just like, oh, I can't
imagine anything that could gowrong with that I know,
especially since you're givingthese to dementia patients.
(07:09):
Yeah, well, I mean old people.
They're hard of hearing,they've got all sorts of
different pains, especiallysince you're giving these to
dementia patients.
Protagonist wakes up groggy andfinds out that he's been
implanted with this thing andit's like if you don't do what
we say and check in every 12hours, we're going to set this
off and you're going to die.
(07:30):
It's like, okay, maybe that'sthe kind of thing where he got
the idea.
But the thing is, it's one ofthese things where it's a
solution looking for a problem,even if you accept the premise
that no longer wanting to live,but being prevented from taking
your own life that that's a realthing or should be.
If someone has reached a stageof dementia where he or she is
(07:55):
no longer aware or has forgottenthe desire that he or she once
had to not live this way, thenthere is no problem.
Once had to not live this way,then there is no problem because
there is no disconnect betweenthe individual's desires and the
individual's reality.
It's not a problem.
It's only a problem for thepast self, not for the present
(08:19):
self.
But again, what Bob mentionslike get people talking about it
.
Eventually they get used to it.
Christa Potratz (08:26):
Yeah, I think too.
The paragraph that jumped out atme too was when Nischke it says
says the proposal is meant toaddress a growing problem
Individuals with early stagedementia who support assisted
suicide but fear they will losecapacity before being able to
act, and kind of you know likewhat you were saying too, like
(08:47):
this growing problem that's outthere, that these people are
going to just forget, oh, that Iwanted to die, and that it's
our job, as like the goodSamaritans or society, to remind
them that they really wanted todie this way that they wanted
(09:17):
to have that control, that todaywas the day I was going to kill
myself.
Jeff Samelson (09:20):
But I got up and there was this thing that needed
to be done and this other thing, and then I got interested in
this thing and you know what, bythe time I got to the end of
the day, I had forgotten Iwanted to kill myself.
We would count that as a win, agreat big positive, not a
problem that she forgot shewanted to die.
But what's true with this25-year-old apparently isn't
(09:44):
true with a dementia patientthat if they wanted to die and
they forgot it, that's a problem.
Bob Fleischmann (09:51):
Now, one of the problems you get with assisted
suicide mentality is a lot oftimes even well-meaning
Christians will buy into thenotion that, well, it's not for
me.
But if they want to be that way, then fine, we can make it
legalized.
If they want to off themselves,let them go ahead and do that.
First of all, please don't beso simple as to think that way.
You create a tenor in societywhen this kind of stuff goes on.
(10:16):
You know, when Jack Kevorkiancreated this dumb little
three-bottle contraption, youknow, and created this dumb
little three-bottle contraption,you know, and led Janet Atkins
into the back of the van back inI think it was 1990 or 91, so
that she could end her life.
I mean, it was the stuff ofjokes.
People joked about it becauseeverything about it was a
rundown van.
He slept on a mattress on thefloor.
(10:36):
I remember reading the articlein the Detroit Free Press.
But the reality is today, notonly do we have a number of
states that have legalizedassisted suicide, maybe
sanitized it to some degree, butnow you get people, good people
, christian people, who begin tostart buying into the mentality
(10:58):
.
It has zero support inScripture.
No one's bothered to ask whatGod thinks about this, but
instead the religion that Nishkeis part of, which is humanism
it's all about us just keepspushing their religion on all of
us and then in the end we'regoing to find people led astray.
Christa Potratz (11:16):
Yeah, it'll be interesting.
I thought we had seen it allwith the death pods.
What comes next here?
Well, another article that wewanted to talk about was one
that Jeff had brought up, withtrials for artificial blood that
are being done, I believe, inJapan, right.
Jeff Samelson (11:32):
Yeah, this was interesting.
It's not something I had heardabout before and I realized I
should have heard about this.
This seems like a prettynatural kind of thing for people
to be looking into.
No-transcript are pretty goodabout donating blood and it's
(12:14):
fairly well distributed,although from time to time there
are going to be shortages orthey're not going to have enough
of the special type thatcertain people need and things,
but generally speaking, it's notat a crisis stage, but
generally speaking, in lowerincome nations, fewer people
donate their blood and so thosenations have to ration it.
They don't have enough.
(12:35):
They can't give it to all thepeople who might otherwise
benefit from having it whenthey're in the hospital or
having surgery or they've had anaccident or something like that
.
The reason why Japan inparticular, is looking into this
is what I found particularlyinteresting, which is that Japan
and I believe we've mentionedthis on this podcast before they
are aging rapidly and what thatmeans is that people are
(12:59):
getting old, which happens witheverybody, but they're not being
generally replaced orsupplemented by children being
born.
They have a very low fertilityrate not the lowest, but very
low, very much below replacementlevels and generally speaking,
it's younger people who donateblood, which means that as the
(13:20):
population ages, there's goingto be a much greater desire or
need for donated blood thanthere will be people around to
donate that blood.
And so by creating thisartificial blood they're going
to assuming that it works,whatever they're going to be
able to solve the problem of nothaving enough to do this and
one of the nice things, at leastone of the particular trials
(13:42):
they're trying it won't evenmatter what type of blood you
need, which will be a realbenefit as well.
Bob Fleischmann (13:50):
Typical blood can be stored 21 to 42 days and
there is another, a secondprocedure for creating what they
call artificial blood, whichinvolves taking cells out of the
bone marrow.
And the problem with that is,again, it only has a shelf life
of 21 to 42 days.
This new Japanese approachinvolves literally almost like
(14:14):
freeze-drying it and it has ashelf life of as little as two
years to several years.
And the only negative really ofit now from the way that
they're promoting it typicalblood costs about $215, and the
comparative amount of theartificial blood is about $5,000
(14:34):
to $9,000.
But they feel that with makingmore of it at one time it's
going to come along.
I think it has real promise andI liked when at one time it's
going to come along.
I think it has real promise.
And I liked when Jeff sent thenote around for us to look at
because he wrote it was a littlebit obscure.
It was kind of like.
I kind of liked the fertilityangle or something.
And so I'm reading the articleexpecting to see something on,
(14:57):
you know, like a boosted spermrate or something like that.
But no, it's actually it'sbecause it's a very practical
problem and you see itespecially in underdeveloped
countries where they only haveabout a 40% stock of what they
need.
I guess in developed countriesit's right around 70% or 80%,
(15:18):
but in undeveloped countriesit's like 40% stock percent, but
in undeveloped countries it'slike 40 percent stock, and so a
product like this and then youcombine that with like a South
Korean problem, which has thelowest fertility rate, or
Japanese problem, or even a USproblem because we have a below
replacement rate birth rate,this holds a lot of promise.
(15:38):
This is kind of one of thoseadvancements that you get kind
of excited about.
Christa Potratz (15:43):
Yeah, no, it was really interesting and I
think too like was it in thearticle as well, like it said,
you know, because in Japanspecifically, it was like how
you mentioned, like for 65 andup, is where they primarily use
(16:07):
the blood for those individuals,and I think was it like
underdeveloped countries or indifferent places where it's
typically like you use the bloodfor kids, that are five and
under right, and so that wasjust real interesting as well.
But I think you know anotherarticle then that we also wanted
to touch on that deals a littlebit with the fertility rate and
(16:27):
different things too is thatthe average age of US mothers
now giving birth is rising.
So I believe it maybe was about, or closer to, 25 years of age
back in I don't know maybe like10 to 15 years ago, but now it
has risen and is getting alittle closer to 30, right.
Bob Fleischmann (16:50):
Yeah, it's up to 27.5.
And I think one of the thingsto remember is that when the
average age is 27.5, that tellsyou you've got an increasingly
large number of mothers in their30s and even into their 40s.
And it raises questions aboutproblems.
Now, back when we were startinga family, everyone was talking
(17:12):
about.
You know, it gets reallydangerous after 35 to have a
child, because it can createproblems for the child and it
creates added risk for themother.
And that's where we are,because a lot of people have
wanted to get their career onboard, they've wanted to get to
know each other better beforethey have children.
(17:33):
You know even couples, whenthey you know we've talked
before about people who don'twant children but a growing
number of couples us pastors,when we've done pre-marriage
counseling, we've all heard ityou know where they.
Well, okay, we want to start afamily, but not yet.
You know those kinds of thingsand you've got to remember that
waiting quantifiably comes withrisks and you have to ask
(17:57):
yourself you know, how far am Iwilling to go with the risk?
And the risk is both to childand to mother and there are
obviously different kinds ofrisks, but they do affect both
and the numbers are astoundingreally.
They've always said that thebenchmark is under 30 or under
35.
(18:17):
You know, that's kind of likenormal.
And they say that infantmortality for birth mothers 35
to 39 goes up to 6.5 deaths per1,000 births.
Okay, and then if you're abirth mother between 40 to 49,
that number rises almost 50% to9.3.
(18:41):
But let's talk maternalmortality.
If you're a mother, the chancesof you dying in childbirth
between the ages of 25 and 39 is3.1 out of 10,000 births.
So it's pretty nil.
If you're over the age of 40,that now rises to 13.9 out of
(19:08):
10,000 births.
So that number quadruplesreally.
And then severe maternalmorbidity, which is like really
health complications.
From 35 to 39, a mother has17.9 out of 1,000 births.
She's going to have someproblems.
If she's 40 to 44, that jumpsto 23.
(19:30):
So the numbers are always goingup and you have to be aware of
it.
And the statistics in this casestatistics don't lie.
You either live or you die.
Either the baby is born aliveor the baby dies.
Either the mother dies or themother lives or the mother has
complications.
These are fairly solidstatistics.
(19:51):
I'm not aware of anybodyquestioning them.
That depends on whether it wasa full moon or a half moon or
all sorts of other crazy things,and so it's alarming.
And as a father who had all ofhis children young, you know my
five daughters were born beforeI was 30.
I'm having a grand old timewith my grandchildren who are
(20:15):
already in high school.
I mean it's just, it's a funexperience.
So I mean there is that addedincentive to still have them
young.
I would say I got my careerpretty much on track still with
that kind of schedule.
The point is is that we'reinterested in doing what is safe
, and this is something you havesomething to do about.
I mean, you make a consciousdecision to wait and you've got
(20:39):
to balance it out.
Is it at what cost decision towait?
Jeff Samelson (20:42):
and you got to balance it out.
Is it at what cost, chris?
I mean I think we can assumeyou're probably a bit more
likely to be in tune withyounger women and what they're
thinking and such.
Do you think that it'sgenerally understood or even
known by you?
Know women age 25 and older howmuch the risks increase when
(21:03):
they put off having childrenuntil later?
Christa Potratz (21:44):
And so as I started kind of nearing that age
with my final pregnancy and hadother friends in similar areas
and stuff, then you are moreaware of that, you like see more
celebrities like having babieslater and stuff, you just kind
of think, oh, you're not reallythinking about the risk.
And that's not really somethingthat I think people that is
made known to people.
Bob Fleischmann (21:59):
And people do play the odds.
I mean they.
And then, plus, to justremember this, a lot of the
celebrities they didn't have,their babies, just remember this
a lot of the celebrities theydidn't have their babies.
Christa Potratz (22:09):
They hired somebody to have their babies.
No, and what we kind of maybeforget too with with like
younger people I mean peoplethat are in their twenties and
like early twenties and stufftoo those people are amazing.
They can just do more.
I could do more when I was inmy 20s and so raising kids and
(22:30):
going to school or raising kidsand having a, starting your
career and that type of thingthose people are amazing and
they have.
They have the energy to do ittoo, and so they're just.
There is more, more energy.
I think that the younger momshave too.
Jeff Samelson (22:48):
And just connecting some, some dots here.
Bob talked about, you know,having kids young enough to now.
You know he.
You know, before he's a toomuch of a geezer he can still
play with his.
Christa Potratz (22:59):
Those were your words, right.
Jeff Samelson (23:00):
You know, enjoy the company of his grandchildren
.
That's another one of thethings that people are not
forgetting, because it's notjust that as you age, you get
less energy.
Your parents definitely haveless energy, and one of the
things the article mentioned wasthat lack of childcare is one
(23:21):
of the things that, oraffordable childcare is cited as
one of the reasons that peopleput off having kids Because it's
like, well, we can't afford itwhen we're too young.
But the thing is, by waiting solong to have children, you
eliminate having your parents,the kids' grandparents as help
for your child care situation,because they no longer have the
(23:43):
energy to watch your kids theway they would have if you had
had your kids when they werestill in their 50s or early 60s.
I don't see those dotsconnected very often and they
probably should be.
Bob Fleischmann (23:55):
There's not a biblical mandate that says by a
certain age you should havechildren.
But when we gather this kind ofinformation, we become aware of
it.
You know, we just kind of askourselves you know, kind of it's
kind of everything else.
I mean, you use some logic whenyou decided to wait having
children because of my career,okay, well then that same logic
(24:16):
has to scoop in the additionalinformation that it becomes more
dangerous for you and the child.
And right now we're justsharing this with you, so you
know.
Christa Potratz (24:26):
The last thing that we kind of wanted to touch
on today too, was what RFK Jr isdoing to the vaccine
establishment.
So I think our listeners willbe interested to know what's
going on with that.
Jeff Samelson (24:43):
Those people who are vaccine skeptics are
probably cheering all of this.
But we're not vaccine skepticshere.
We are certainly in favor ofbeing careful, being
well-informed and such, but alot of the things that people
point to to say, aha, this iswhy vaccines are bad, this is
why nobody should have them, orwhy all these recommendations
(25:04):
are off.
A lot of that's based on eitherno science at all or bad
science and in many cases alsobad theology and not maligning
anybody who has strong feelingsor convictions about these
things.
People can make their decisionsor whatever.
But when we're talking at thenational level of policy and
what is not simply just what isprovided by the government, but
(25:28):
also what is what informationthe government puts out there,
what recommendations it's ableto make and things like that
what it's able to make possibleor available, that's not just a
decision you're making foryourself, I mean, that's made
for everybody.
And so it's of concern that alot is being done right now to
(25:50):
undo what has been put intoplace in the past for the
nation's good.
Bob Fleischmann (25:56):
You know it's interesting because during the
pandemic and everything, when weat Christian Life Resources
released our statement onvaccines, a lot of terrible
things were said and got a lotof bad mail and that kind of
stuff.
I don't retract any of it thatwe wrote in it, but at the same
(26:24):
time I do find it interestingsitting in the bleachers
watching this going on inWashington, because I try, and a
lot of people, because everyoneeither reads what I write or
listens to what I say anddevelops a kind of a bias as to
how they think I am.
I think I'm far more objectivethan most people would give me
credit for, and that is so.
I'm watching this and I'm going.
So what if RFK is right?
Let's just say he's right.
(26:47):
So first thing he does is hefires the 17-member advisory
panel.
Okay, so I did a deep dive onthe 17-member advisory panel.
Do you know?
You can hardly identify whothey are.
It's almost like a secret, andsome of them were on the payroll
for some pharmaceuticals, which, of course, isn't part of the
(27:07):
controversy that's going on nowwith publishing papers and
finding out that you were beingfunded and stuff by a
pharmaceutical.
My point is okay, he may havehad an argument that we need to
clean house Now it wasn't likehe replaced them with experts on
vaccines and immunology andthat kind of stuff.
(27:29):
Not all of them were.
Personally, when I looked at thenew panel, I'm not going to say
I was too overly concerned.
I think media made more of itthan they should.
But I do have a problem in thatyou know, when you walk into
something presuming everythingwas fine and now you just came
(27:49):
and screwed it up or everythingwas wrong and now you're coming
in to make it better, you knowfinally, pretty much both sides
are wrong.
My flags go up whenever I seehouse cleaning, whenever they
throw them all out.
My flags go up whenever I seehousecleaning, whenever they
throw them all out, because Iremember counseling a synodical
president once.
I just said to him I go, Ithink you should form a kitchen
(28:12):
cabinet and I think you shouldput on it one or two people that
you absolutely cannot stand.
They're contrary to you oneverything, because you need
people like that to kind of keepyou balanced.
And I do think you know theanti-vax people based on what
they've written to me and stufflike that.
Some of them are just, theylack logic, they lack foundation
(28:35):
, they're more ideological thanthey are, theological, that kind
of stuff.
But at the same time some raisesome interesting points and I
think it's good to listen to himand I would hope that RFK Jr
would kind of like he had a17-member panel.
I think he's down to an eightor a nine-member panel.
It'd be nice if he brought backa couple of the other guys just
(28:58):
to keep it balanced a littlebit.
On a subject like this, youwant to have kind of a good
knockdown argument about it.
Again, I have not seen anythingpublished that has made me want
to take back what we wrote,what we released, but I do think
that they've offeredperspectives that need to be
looked at and I think RFK Jrcould do that if he's balanced.
(29:24):
But we'll see.
You know, I'm just I'm notconvinced yet that he's going to
be balanced.
Jeff Samelson (29:31):
His past life does not give much of a hint of
balance.
Bob Fleischmann (29:36):
He's said some good things since coming in A
few good things.
But yeah, his past being I, wasnot in favor of his selection
for it.
But we'll see.
Christa Potratz (29:48):
Do you think, just kind of like, given I don't
know, I mean you know, I meanTrump came in, you know very
much to going to clean house,going to just completely flip
everything over, I mean, do youthink that kind of played into
some of this too?
Or I mean, was that just kindof always how it was going to
kind of go with him?
Jeff Samelson (30:09):
I think it certainly kind of gave
permission to him.
You know the sense of well,they're doing this in all these
other departments.
I should be able to do it here.
You know whether he would havedone that regardless, I suspect.
Bob Fleischmann (30:24):
That he probably still would have done
it, but I think under the guiseof Doge and stuff like that they
were doing house cleaning.
There was enough outcry aboutvaccines that there does need to
be more transparency.
First of all, I wish some ofthe people who wrote me some
very harsh and nasty letterswould dig deeper.
(30:45):
I did, because some of thestuff they wrote me was just
plain, outright wrong and theywere just overlooking or seeing
what they wanted to see andignoring what they should see.
But at the same time, some ofthis information, like, for
example, it bothered me greatly.
Some of this information, like,for example, it bothered me
greatly when I set out to find.
I just wanted to know.
(31:06):
My question was who are the 17people on the panel originally?
Who appointed them and whatties did they have to companies,
you know, pharmaceuticals orwhat?
There were probably six oreight that I still could not
find.
It's just not out there.
It's just not out there, it'sjust not readily available.
That bothers me.
(31:28):
I mean, I'm sure somebody, ifthey're listening to it, could
probably find the list and giveit to me and so forth.
And there were some people whohad some ties to pharmaceuticals
.
Nothing much but some ties.
But you know, that's kind oflike checking out on my
(31:49):
objectivity on Scripture andfinding out.
If I have ties to a religiouschurch body, of course you're
going to have some ties to somedegree, so that doesn't
necessarily bother me.
But the transparency part youknow that I'm in favor of.
The problem is if someone'sgoing to come out against
vaccines and so forth.
You know I want the informationso transparent out there that
sometimes you have to dismisssome people as just not knowing
(32:09):
what they're talking about.
Christa Potratz (32:11):
That's all we have time for today.
I want to thank you both forall the information on these
different topics, and we thankall of our listeners too, for
joining us, and if you have anyquestions on any of these topics
, you can reach us atlifechallengesus, and we look
forward to seeing you back nexttime.
Thanks a lot, bye.
Paul Snamiska (32:34):
Thank you for joining us for this episode of
the Life Challenges podcast fromChristian Life Resources.
Please consider subscribing tothis podcast, giving us a review
wherever you access it andsharing it with friends.
We're sure you have questionson today's topic or other life
issues.
Our goal is to help you throughthese tough topics and we want
(32:54):
you to know we're here to help.
You can submit your questions,as well as comments or
suggestions for future episodes,at lifechallengesus or email us
at podcast atchristianliferesourcescom.
In addition to the podcasts, weinclude other valuable
information at lifechallengesus,so be sure to check it out.
(33:17):
For more about our parentorganization, please visit
christianliferesourcescom.
May God give you wisdom, love,strength and peace in Christ for
every life challenge.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.