stat counnnter

Monday, June 15, 2020

Euthanasia of the elderly not a new idea.

  [Some people may have wondered where did some of our governors and mayors get the notion that the elderly are disposable in a pandemic so we can expose them to things like viruses? That kind of thinking isn't new. This post from my blog of May 2008 originally included a post on our military erecting a golf course in Iraq which is irrelevant to this post below. I did some editing for clarity.]


The May 5th 2008 Detroit News has two stories that are disgusting in their premises and implications. The first is what I call introduction to euthanasia and is titled "Medical disaster plan touts whom to let die" by AP writer Lindsey Tanner. It says in part:

" CHICAGO -- Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die."

   "Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia. (....) The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report. The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources -- including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses -- are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said."

This isn't some right or left wing wacko group. It's your friendly altruistic (Sacrificing life to death) government.

   "The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services."

So who gets to die?

     "To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

    • People older than 85.

    • Those with severe trauma, which could include critical car crash injuries and shootings.

    • Severely burned patients older than 60.

    • Those with severe mental impairment, which may include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

    • Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes. "

Please understand that this policy reverses the usual hospital practice that those most critically injured be attended before those who are not. If you have one leg in the grave and the other on a banana peel, well, to hell with you. But if you're healthier than that, you get care.

Look at those guidelines closer. Everyone over the age of 85 is doomed. What are their chances of "long-term survival"?

"Those with severe trauma.." That would include most people in a widespread disaster wouldn't it? Since when does being over 60 disqualify burn patients from care? Since when did human life become worthless after 60 or 85 or any age?

If the mentally impaired are among the victims, well, they are out of luck too along with those with "poorly managed diabetes"!!!

"Those with severe chronic disease..." Evidently, only those with a good chance of survival will get care. Man! have you ever heard of a more anti-life, anti-human proposal before? Adolph Hitler would love such a policy. Oh wait! He had one didn't he? Did you ever see that video of German newborn infants moving down a conveyor belt and being thrown alive onto a huge pile of writhing and dying babies if there was the slightest physical defect?

Remember, it's not the doctors and nurses who are deciding to do this. They are just "scarce resources" like "ventilators" and "medicine" who will be following orders. And how degrading is it to regard doctors and nurses who spent years learning medicine to be regarded as "scarce resources" like "ventilators and medicine?"

 If you're wondering why would anyone want such a policy? Power. The lust for control over others. There is no mistake about it. The desire by some to regulate the health care of others is the desire to control all of it including the end points, birth and death.

This proposal is essential altruism, human sacrifice. Its only antidote is a life-respecting, man-respecting moral code, rational egoism. In a laissez-faire capitalist society there would be no Homeland Security, or dept. of Human Resources, and the CDC, if it existed, would be entirely private and probably making a ton of money testing for the medical industry.

 But are any of these regulators actually ok with the idea of deciding who gets to live or die? It's hard to say. More likely they just think that making such decisions is doing their altruistic sacrificial duty and that is what is wrong with altruism.

There are other things wrong with that news story as well. One of them is the notion of who to let  die. It is not a matter of letting people die. It is just a fact of reality that some people will die simply because the doctors can't get to them in time. To frame it as a matter of 'letting' or 'allowing'  is suggesting a controller deciding who lives or dies.

A second is "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way." Does this mean no independent thinking by doctors will be allowed?

[This above post was written 12 yrs ago. Government euthanasia of the elderly and weak is not a new idea. To prevent more of this government imposed death control we need to begin a campaign to get government out of health care completely and let the doctors and other medical professionals make those decisions.]