Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Pro-Lifers Said Mass Euthanasia was Next. We were Right!

The Belgian Parliament is about to pass a new law to let children ask for death. Have you ever heard your little son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter say, "I wish I was dead!" Well, if you live in Belgium don't let them say it in the doctor's office, because they might just get what they wish for and parents will be out of the decision-making loop.

Belgian Parliament Posed To Approve Child Euthanasia Law

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and editor of Natural News, is up in arms as all people of good will should be. He expressed his outrage in an article, Euthanasia for children nears approval by Belgian Parliament; doctors to mass euthanize children and Alzheimers patients. 

Since when is killing people health care? Oops, I forgot, killing unborn children has been health care since 1973 in every state in the U.S. So I guess this next step of killing born children is the natural next step. Why not? Killing the elderly, handicapped, and debilitated has been going on under the radar screen (and sometimes very much on it - like Hugh Finn and Terry Schiavo) for years.

Which brings me to the Groningen Protocol which went into effect in 2005 and outlines the circumstances under which doctors can kill their infant patients in the Netherlands. In some cases the protocol is reasonable as, for example, removing from a ventilator a severely ill newborn whose death is imminent. After that, provisions of the protocol are the proverbial "sticky wickets" because they allow doctors to make determinations based, not only on the medical condition of the infant, but on quality of life presumptions:
In the Netherlands, however, if neither withholding nor withdrawing intensive treatment will result in a speedy death, the unbearable suffering of the infant is seen as a compelling reason for the doctor to end its life directly. In the United States this would count as an appalling breach of medical ethics, as it also would in the United Kingdom: the Nuffield Council makes very clear that "the active ending of neonatal life even when that life is 'intolerable' is rejected."[13] But in the Netherlands, the termination of these infants' lives has not caused much controversy. The decision for deliberately ending the life of a group 2 baby involves not only a question of when death should take place, as is the case for babies in group 1, but also a value judgment about the infant's quality of life: the baby is judged to be better off dead than forced to endure the only kind of life it can ever have. ["group 2" babies: infants who "may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim."]
There is a third group, however, children who would survive without technology but would either live with serious  conditions that cause suffering or (watch the floodgate open here) suffer from conditions requiring "complete lifelong dependency, and permanent inability to communicate in any way."
It is precisely those babies who could continue to live but whose lives would be wretched in the extreme [note this is a presumptive conclusion of the doctor] who stand in most need of the interventions for which the protocol offers guidance. The whole point of the protocol is to help physicians end the lives of newborns who are so severely afflicted that neither their dying nor their living should be prolonged. That being the case, the pertinent distinction is not between babies who will die and those who could live, but between babies for whom life-ending decisions should be made and those for whom such decisions cannot be morally justified. In bringing within its compass babies who are in no danger of dying—and, indeed, with proper care could live to adulthood—the protocol is even more radical than its critics supposed.
Radical indeed and there is no reason to limit the protocol to severely damaged infants. If a child develops autism later and loses the power "to communicate in any way" why should a physician not expand the protocol to encompass him? As for Alzheimers patients, are their lives worth living? In most cases they are in no danger of dying and yet they are in a condition of "complete lifelong dependency." Why not include them under the protocol?

Our world is increasingly unwilling to suffer the inconvenience and cost of those who require extended care. The Third Reich called such patients (World War I handicapped vets, the mentally ill, the retarded, and others) "useless eaters." Under the T4 program hundreds of thousands of German citizens were eliminated. And here we are again 75 years later. There is nothing new under the sun!

In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers predicted that euthanasia was the monster lurking in the shrubs inexorably following in the footsteps of the abortion specter. The euthanasia killings have been going on for a long time without much fanfare, but a program of expanded killing is imminent. I can't say it any better than the Health Ranger, Mike Adams:
The age of mass murder by government is upon us. It won't be long before such laws spread to other nations and are expanded to people with "mental health problems" or even cancer. While in theory the idea of euthanasia may have merit in a strictly limited scope, the truth is that governments are now jumping on the euthanasia bandwagon to provide attempted legal justification for the mass murder of children and senior citizens whom they no longer wish to support with health care expenditures. Save the government from bankruptcy! Have grandma euthanized! (Right alongside little autistic Johnny, too.)...God help us all. We are all being mass murdered by the fascist global state, and most of the population is too dumbed-down to realize what's happening.
I think Mike Adams may be all too right. Abortion unleashed the whirlwind and it is as relentless as the superstorm that devastated Moore, OK. The death monster is growing in power and bearing down. May God help us all.

No comments: