Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts

Saturday, August 3, 2013

The Petition for "Mandatory Euthanasia" for Senior Citizens Under Obama Care!

WATCH: Obamacare Supporters Sign Petition For ‘Mandatory Euthanasia’ Of Seniors

300713Dice-570x300

Video: The Petition for "Mandatory Euthanasia" for Senior Citizens Under Obama Care!

Comedian Mark Dice asks people to sign a mandatory euthanasia petition for Seniors, loosely citing the related provision in ObamaCare.  Look how many, especially young people, are willing to sign it.  It might seem a bit humorous now, to some, but as the reality that is now dawning on more and more people, even former DNC Chair Howard Dean, who excoriated those who realized this provision was in there all along, is now voicing his concern. As reality is sets in… It won’t be funny!!

And to those  young people who signed this petition… you will some day also be old, or it could be your parents, grandparents or mentor. As anyone knows who ever studied history or lived in a system where euthanasia is acceptable…

First it will be the seniors with chronic illnesses…

Then it will anyone over a certain age…

Then it will be the special needs and handicapped people

And then it will anyone who stands up or speaks out against the system!!

Be aware… and be afraid of this one!!

Thursday, December 6, 2012

American Nurses Association Should Not Support Assisted Suicide

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) has responded to ANA’s call for public comments on their proposed document “Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.”

As an organization dedicated to the preservation of ethical standards in the nursing profession, NAPN finds the document an unnecessary change from the current position. While the document makes several good statements regarding respect for the patient, any accommodation to the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia has no place in the medical profession. Nurses are healers, not killers, and legalization of the practice will not make it ethical.

The document cites as one resource for their study the pro-euthanasia organization, Compassion in Choices. The use of organizations as resources which have as their primary focus the legalization of these practices does not lend to the credibility of the document. There are other sources for the same statistics that could have been cited.

NAPN notes that the current statement of the ANA position on assisted suicide and euthanasia does not require any revision. Sadly, even that document, which declined to endorse assisted suicide/euthanasia, was not sufficient for the ANA to come to the protection of the life of Terri Schiavo who was not in the process of dying as food and hydration were withdrawn from her in order to assure her death. In their official statement, the ANA sided with the controversial determination that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and as such, the proper decision was reached in the withdrawing of nutrition and hydration based on some unsubstantiated statements she supposedly made regarding the care she would have wanted under such circumstances. The stated position of the ANA does not translate into life-affirming actions on the part of the ANA. The absence of activity to protect the life of patients speaks volumes and it would be naïve to think that the new document would produce any different action on the part of the ANA.

The main objection of NAPN to the document is the lack of any real protection for the conscience rights of nurses. As an organization which has been involved in the defense of exercise of these rights, it is distressing to us that the professional organization which purports to represent nurses has been absent in the defense of these nurses in spite of any platitudes to the contrary. Yes, limits outlined in the document do exist, but it seems unlikely that the ANA will come to the defense of the nurse who declines to participate when it has not done so in the practice of abortion. More than once at the state level where conscience protections were being considered for legislation, the state affiliate of the ANA has testified, not on behalf of the nurses, but on behalf of those who would force them to violate their conscience. Where are the protections for those in the medical profession who would object to participating in the omission of care for Terri Schiavo? The ANA remained silent when President Obama rescinded the conscience protections which were put in place in the waning months of the Bush administration. Such actions lead one to question just who the ANA actually represents.

Lastly, it should be noted that the ANA position of support for the highly politicized Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act further clouds the stated position of the ANA. Support for an act which promotes wholesale practice of abortion and provides for a Patient Advisory Board which would limit treatment is counter to the stated position of the ANA. The ANA cannot have it both ways. You cannot make high minded statements to the public and then act in a manner contradictory to these statements and retain your credibility.

We pro-life nurses feel abandoned with regard to the protection of our conscience rights in the workplace. In spite of the position statement of ANA supporting a nurse’s right to be exempt from participating in procedures which transgress her moral principles, they have been absent in the defense of nurses such as Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo in New York in her dispute with Mt. Sinai Hospital for forcing her to choose between her conscience and her job. They were in absentia in the defense of the twelve nurses in New Jersey who were told they must participate in abortion or lose their jobs. In spite of platitudes in their statement, it has not translated into action. Nurses deserve better representation.

LifeNews Note: Marianne Linane is the Executive Director of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. She holds a Masters Degree in Bioethics from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

cardinaloconnorad

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare?

Doctor describes “horror” of Britain’s socialist healthcare system

Paul Joseph Watson  -  Infowars.com  -  November 30, 2012

A physician has told the British Medical Journal about the “unique horror” of watching a newborn baby shrivel up and die under a cost-cutting system of socialized healthcare that withdraws feeding tubes from sick and disabled babies, a method that could be replicated in the United States under Obamacare.

After speaking with doctors who have blown the whistle on how babies are being starved and dehydrated to death in British hospitals, an investigation by the Daily Mail has revealed that the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway end of life regime is being used to kill disabled newborns and young children. It was previously thought that the method was only being used on elderly and terminally ill adult patients.

The method has been criticized as a form of euthanasia because its primary purpose is to kill off patients quicker so as to free up more hospital beds and resources.

One physician spoke of how parents who gave permission for their babies to be put on the ‘pathway to death’ were making the decision without properly considering the abhorrent reality of what dehydration and starvation does to the human body.

“I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby,” the doctor writes. “I reflect on how sanitised this experience seems within the literature about making this decision.”

The doctor also dismissed the myth that the baby does not suffer during the process.

“Survival is often much longer than most physicians think…..Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues,” he wrote.

“Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels,” he wrote, describing the mixture of “compassion, revulsion, and pain” the care team had to experience in watching the baby slowly die.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, also revealed how parents are being coerced into agreeing to put their children on the LCP, and that she “Witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.”

“I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die,” added Lloyd.

Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), now under independent investigation by order of government ministers, is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”

The investigation into LCP will “look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions” to put patients on the ‘pathway to death’.

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino said.

The Telegraph’s Gerald Warner notes that LCP represents “euthanasia by the back door.” Other doctors such as Dr. Peter Hargreaves have highlighted the fact that patients taken off LCP have gone on to live for “significant amounts of time.”

Because death occurs on average within 33 hours of a patient being put on LCP, the cost difference between two days of morphine and treatment of a condition for months or even years means the NHS is literally euthanising people to save money.

“In fact, Hargreaves noted, some patients may exhibit signs of dying when their bodies are merely reacting to sedation combined with dehydration and then “be wrongly put on the pathway.” Once a patient is sedated under the LCP, University of London geriatrics professor P.H. Millard told the Telegraph, “it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better.”

“Pullicino echoed many of these sentiments, saying that “patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition,” that “predicting death” at a specific time “is not possible scientifically,” and that, as a result, “very likely many patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”

Could a similar system of euthanasia become commonplace in America under Obamacare?

President Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a group of doctors that would make decisions on cost cutting measures under Obamacare. Opponents of government-run healthcare have dubbed this a system of “death panels” that would have the power to refuse treatment to the elderly or severely ill patients, a de-facto form of mandatory euthanasia.

Last month, Obama adviser Steven Rattner acknowledged that rationed healthcare would be part of Obamacare, brazenly stating, “We need death panels.”

The idea that “death panels” would be introduced through Obamacare as a means of rationing healthcare was also discussed during an Aspen Institute conference in 2010 when Obama supporter Bill Gates argued that money should not be spent on treating the elderly.

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

This eugenicist mindset was also evident in a paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne which argued that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy.

Allowing patients to die via the horrifically slow and painful method of dehydration and starvation is not just restricted to the elderly and sick or disabled babies.

In a series of best-selling books, author and bioethics expert Wesley J. Smith has exposed how adults in the United States who regain consciousness after being comatose and are able to exhibit physical and emotional responses are also being starved and dehydrated to death.

If America mimics Britain’s notoriously bad socialized healthcare system, thousands upon thousands of sick babies will likely be left to die excruciatingly painful deaths in the name of cost-cutting measures that amount to nothing less than a cruel and inhumane death sentence.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

  1. Related:
  2. Elderly To Be Euthanized Under Obamacare?
  3. Top UK doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
  4. Elderly Woman Left to Die Under Britain’s Death Care System
  5. Why My Doctor Hates Obamacare
  6. Death on wheels: Dutch to send mobile clinics to euthanize people
  7. Sick babies denied treatment due to corp. patent on gene
  8. GlaxoSmithKline Fined Over Illegal Vaccine Experiments Killing 14 Babies
  9. Sentenced to death on the NHS
  10. Brit doctors admit practicing ‘slow euthanasia’ on terminally-ill patients
  11. Using ultrasounds to determine gestational age could result in baby’s death
  12. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Obamacare
  13. Doctors Agree: Their Jobs Suck, and the Government is Largely To Blame
  14. Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule
  15. On the Road to Death Panels
  16. ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You're Just Not Worth It
  17. “Death Panel” Three Years Later
  18. Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee
  19. Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president
  20. “Death Panel” Three Years Later
  21. The Bilderberg Group’s Connection To Everything In The World – Updated
  22. People of Faith
  23. Obama Regulation Czar, Cass Sunstein, Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
  24. Obama’s "Science Czar" Advocates De-Developing the US to World of Zero Growth
  25. Video: More Scary Stuff From Obama’s Science Czar
  26. Holdren Says Constitution Backs Compulsory Abortion
  27. Holdren: Seize Babies Born to Unwed Women
  28. List of Obama’s Czars Plus Two – Updated: 8.18.09 – Remember when the Czars were the hot topic… but they overwhelmed us and forgot them to do they scary dirty jobs…
  29. Science Czar John P. Holdren – Updated 9.2.09
  30. Meet Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly an Disabled for the Greater Good – But don’t forget… Sarah Palin was crazy…
  31. Complete Lives System by Ezekial Emanuel
  32. ObamaCare… the Kiss of Death - Collection of OBAMA SCARE - Articles U CAN NOT MISS!
  33. Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule
  34. Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans
  35. "People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"– Updated
  36. Soylent Green Anyone???
  37. Great Grandmother Mary Allen Hardison: 101-Year-Old Woman Breaks Guinness World Record... Oldest Female to Paraglide Tandem
  38. Go Granny Go!!
  39. Seniors Left Behind?
  40. The 'kill granny' bill
  41. The Return of Mediscare
  42. Checkout: ObamaCare Survival Guide

Monday, December 27, 2010

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

death,panel,obama,palin,medicare,ruleThe new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Soylent Green Anyone???

Movie (full length): Soylent Green – They Were People

Holland Takes Euthanasia to the Extreme

Stupak: Dems Say Abortions Will Make Health Care Cheaper

In the ObamaCare Bill as outlined by Dr. Stephen E. Frasier, MD in a letter to Indiana Senator Bayh and published in the Indianapolis Star:

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Gov’t mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!) – Think Holland

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.') (Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Gov’t mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Gov’t has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Gov’t will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Is anybody ready to apologize to Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin yet?? You will be if this passes!!!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Holland Takes Euthanasia to the Extreme

Holland proposes giving over-70s the right to die if they 'consider their lives complete'

By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 10th March 2010

Senior Woman Sitting in Wheelchair

World first: Holland will consider assisted suicide for over 70s

Assisted suicide for anyone over 70 who has simply had enough of life is being considered in Holland.

Non-doctors would be trained to administer a lethal potion to elderly people who 'consider their lives complete'.

The radical move would be a world first and push the boundaries even further in the country that first legalised euthanasia.

The Dutch parliament is to debate the measure after campaigners for assisted suicide collected 112,500 signatures in a month.

Euthanasia has been available for the terminally ill in Holland since 2002 in cases of 'hopeless and unbearable suffering' certified by two doctors, but this would be a far bigger step.

Supporters say it would offer a dignified way to die for those over 70 who just want to give up living, without having to resort to difficult or unreliable solitary suicide methods.

They might include widows and widowers overwhelmed by grief, those unwilling to face the frailties of extreme old age or people determined to ‘get out while they’re ahead’ and meet death on their own terms.

The assistants who administered the deadly cocktail of sedatives would need to be certified, campaigners said.

More...

And they would have to make sure that patients were not acting on a whim or due to a temporary depression, but from a heartfelt and enduring desire to die.

But critics say there is scope for the elderly to come under untoward pressure from unscrupulous relatives.

Many religious groups oppose any form of suicide on principle.

And the Royal Dutch Medical Association - which played a key role in supporting the nation's euthanasia law - fears patients would use the policy as a way of getting around their own doctors.

Although Switzerland allows assisted suicide in cases where someone is not terminally ill, the Dutch measure would go further.

Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich

'Own choosing': Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich

In July 2009, British conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, died together at the Dignitas suicide clinic outside Zürich 'under circumstances of their own choosing,' in the words of a family statement.

Sir Edward was not terminally ill, but virtually blind and deaf, while his wife was diagnosed with rapidly developing cancer.

In 2008 former rugby player Daniel James, 23, died at Dignitas. He had been paralysed from the waist down when his spine was dislocated in a training accident.

But Swiss law required Sir Edward and Mr James to hold and drink a lethal draught themselves, while in Holland the dose could be administered by a non-medical assistant.

Marie-Jose Grotenhuis of the Dutch 'Of Free Will' campaign said: 'We've been overwhelmed by the amount of reactions, especially because people took it so seriously and reactions were mostly positive.'

Several European countries allow some assistance to terminally ill people who wish to die. Belgium has followed the Dutch euthanasia model, while Britain and France allow terminally ill people to refuse treatment but stop short of allowing active euthanasia.

Around 2,500 euthanasia cases were reported in the Netherlands in 2009, rising gradually in the past decade as doctors have become more willing to disclose the practice.

Campaigners for the over-70s assisted suicide measure needed 40,000 signatures to force a debate in parliament and will do so after national elections on June 9.

The plan is certain to face resistance and if approved would still need to go through a lengthy process before becoming law.

The legalisation of euthanasia for the terminally ill was preceded by decades of discussion and quiet negotiation that attached stringent conditions and medical supervision.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256670/Holland-proposes-giving-70s-consider-lives-complete-right-die.html#ixzz0hu6lCgjM

This should be an eye opener for all those pro-ObamaCare people who haven't read the bill or can't read between the lines... Is there really anybody out there that thinks this is okay?? Or that 70 is that old?? Or that healthy people are every useless??

This is what we should be celebrating and shooting for:

2 of oldest people in US die: in NH 114, Mich. 113

Mon Mar 8, 9:34 pm ET

WESTMORELAND, N.H. – Two of the oldest people in the world have died on the same day.

Mary Josephine Ray, who was certified as the oldest person living in the United States, died Sunday at age 114 years, 294 days. She died at a nursing home in Westmoreland but was active until about two weeks before her death, her granddaughter Katherine Ray said.

"She just enjoyed life. She never thought of dying at all," Katherine Ray said. "She was planning for her birthday party."

Ray died just hours before Daisey Bailey, who was 113 years, 342 days, said L. Stephen Coles, a director of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks and studies old people and certifies those 110 or older, called supercentenarians.

"It's very rare that two of our supercentenarians die on the same day," Coles said.

Bailey, who was born March 30, 1896, died in Detroit, he said. She had suffered from dementia, said her family, which claimed she was born in 1895.

Ray, even with her recent decline, managed an interview with a reporter last week, her granddaughter said.

Ray was the oldest person in the United States and the second-oldest in the world, the Gerontology Research Group said. She also was recorded as the oldest person ever to live in New Hampshire.

The oldest living American is now Neva Morris, of Ames, Iowa, at age 114 years, 216 days. The oldest person in the world is Japan's Kama Chinen at age 114 years, 301 days.

Ray was born May 17, 1895, in Bloomfield, Prince Edward Island, Canada. She moved to the United States at age 3.

She lived for 60 years in Anson, Maine. She lived in Florida, Massachusetts and elsewhere in New Hampshire before she moved to Westmoreland in 2002 to be near her children.

Ray's husband, Walter Ray, died in 1967. Survivors include two sons, eight grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and five great-great-grandchildren.

Morris, the Iowa woman now believed to be the oldest U.S. resident, lives at a care center. Only one of her four children, a son in Sioux City, is still alive.

"She has some hearing deficiencies and a visual deficiency, but mentally she is quite alert and will respond when she feels like it and isn't too tired," said her 90-year-old son-in-law, Tom Wickersham, who lives in the same care center.

Wickersham said he visits his mother-in-law — who plays bingo and enjoys singing "You Are My Sunshine" — nearly every day.

Related:

2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read…

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Ultimate Resting Place of Socialized Medicine?

My wife and I disagree about some of the key end-of-life issues. When such morbid subjects arise, as they must and as they have with increasing frequency as the debate over medical care rages on, she remains adamant that she does not want to linger in pain, holding on to those final months, weeks, days or moments through any extraordinary medical intervention.

On the other hand, I want to live for every additional second modern medicine or Providence might permit. Dylan Thomas summed up my feelings in his most famous poem:

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

As President Barack Obama and Congress discuss health care legislation, and we citizens worry over the ramifications of possible policy outcomes, there arises the haunting specter of euthanasia. My wife and I may disagree on what end-of-life decision to make, but we agree that it should be our decision, not the government's.

A proposal to cover millions more Americans with medical insurance predicated on spending less on medical care in the process perplexes enough. But for those who care about freedom -- not having government tell you how to live -- and those who wish to live as long as they can -- by definition, not having the government tell you to hang it up and die -- there is even more to fear.

It's not that Obamacare is a one-step federal government takeover of medicine. But it does qualify as another giant step in that same frightening direction.

We've known for years that the more the government picks up the tab for our doctors, nurses, and drugs, the more the government will tell us how to live our lives. What to eat. What not to eat. What not to smoke or drink. What recreations not to engage in (too dangerous), and that we need to do more leg-lifts and jumping jacks with more gusto -- like a scene I recall from 1984.

Already cities have banned trans fat. The poor, who happen to smoke or drink alcohol in larger percentages than those more well off, are increasingly crushed under sin taxes. There's talk of hiking taxes on Dr. Pepper -- and candy.

We can hope that the power of police unions can keep donuts on the market at relatively low expense.

But expect much worse. And though the excuse for ever greater nannying will always be to protect the taxpayers (forced by politicians to pay the medical bills of everyone else), it will be government experts, not taxpayers, dictating dietary and exercise mandates to the population.

Still, the issue of euthanasia is even more frightening. Older people, as their bodies deteriorate, cost more money. Putting hospitals under increased government budgetary oversight and command will not miraculously increase government budgets for hospitals. Cutting costs will become a draconian theme, never ending . . . until death.

Even now, "death by waiting" is a common rationing procedure in Britain and Canada. If you are young and living under socialized medicine, getting dialysis from government-run hospitals is fairly easy; if you are old, wait. The system's limited medical facilities, doctors and nurses practice a kind of triage. The aged are the hopeless, in this common scenario, and give up their lives for the good of the hospital budget.

This is hardly an "easy death" or "good killing" ("euthanasia" comes from euthanos or “good death”). It is death by bureaucracy. Bureaucrats love their queues,need their queues. And the impetus is clear: Saving "the taxpayers" -- not the patients.

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm addressed this issue decades ago when he philosophized, "We've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life."

Mr. Obama and the congressional architects of their new medical regime are promising to cut the overall cost of care. Are we really to believe there will be no pressure to deny expensive treatments in order to save money?

Many opponents of Obamacare are jumping on a provision in one version of this legislative work-in-progress, a directive to pay doctors to counsel the elderly -- and terminally ill patients -- on various end-of-life issues. In the New York Post, Betsy McCaughey said this mandate "invites abuse" and that "seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care."

A front-page Washington Post article, headlined "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors," reported that this controversy "undercuts what many say is the fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers."

Not getting a pacemaker at 75 years old may mean a person dies at 77 or 78, instead of at 83. What are five years of life worth? Who should decide? (And for many it means 10 ,15 or 20 additional years, and often productive years or years valued by their families.)

With the federal government in the medical care business through the so-called Public Plan, folks in Washington will have the power to decide.

If you don't like your health insurance company, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Paul Jacob :: Townhall.com Columnist by Paul Jacob – Townhall -  The ultimate resting place of socialized medicine?

Related Resources: 

Additional related information in Dick Morris’s Catastrophe

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth