Category Archives: euthanasia

The push for child euthanasia without parental permission!

From caldronpool.com

…ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected,’ the essay stated.

Bioethicists have started preparing the way for the legalisation of child euthanasia in Canada, with one of the proposals advocating assisted suicide without parental approval.

Euthanasia in Canada is currently only available to capable patients aged 18 years or older, however the medical essay titled, Medically Assisted Dying in a Paediatric Hospital, published in the Oxford-based Journal of Medical Ethics, was written “with an eye to the near future when capable young people may gain access to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).”

In all other regards [than who initiates the euthanasia discussion], our working group has, at present, elected to conceptualise MAID as practically and ethically equivalent to other medical practices that result in the end of life. This theorisation of MAID is justified on the grounds that these practices share a common purpose of alleviating unendurable suffering and facilitate the patient dying on their own terms…and is reflective of our concern that the conceptualisation of MAID should not place additional burdens on the patient or function to limit the rights and freedoms to which patients are typically entitled.

The proposal goes on to state, if a child is mature enough to make decisions, doctors will not be required to inform parents or family members about the child’s decision to commit suicide.

If, however, a capable [child] patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although healthcare providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected. If we regard MAID as practically and ethically equivalent to other medical decisions that result in the end of life, then confidentiality regarding MAID should be managed in this same way.

Can you imagine a child discussing euthanasia with a trigger-happy doctor but deciding not to include her parents because she knows they’d oppose it? Can you imagine her parents turning up to the hospital to see their daughter, only to find an empty bed?

The essay goes on to suggest protections for medical staff willing to provide assisted suicide for children. “We will not make public the names of the healthcare providers at The Hospital for Sick Children who have volunteered to provide MAID, nor will we disclose a full list of persons who comprised our working group.”

We will, however, as an institution, publicly discuss the provision of MAID in an effort to normalise this procedure and reduce social stigma for everyone involved. It is right and appropriate for this duty to fall to a well-resourced institution rather than rest on the shoulders of individual patients and providers.

When it comes to euthanasia, the slope is slippery indeed. Assisted suicide is always sold with temporary restrictions.

Also see: Netherlands, euthanasia and the very slippery slope.

If euthanasia is no longer restricted to adults, we have good reason to think someday it will no longer be restricted to the terminally ill. Rather, it will be extended to people with varying quality of life circumstances. How do we know this? Because it’s already happening in the Netherlands.

SOURCE

https://caldronpool.com/push-for-child-euthanasia-without-parental-permission/?fbclid=IwAR1w7asroOShRTDYVH_lQLsonQrbfvUsF-V85oxVFUrCIdJrW01-6je9Bmk

Following in the footsteps of communist China, CANADA begins harvesting organs from euthanized humans

From NaturalNews.com

Natural News) Twenty years ago, I remember telling a physician friend of mine that China was harvesting organs from political prisoners. The doctor — a wine-drinking liberal academic — scoffed at the idea and claimed that if something like that were going on, he would have heard about it by now. (This is how doctors think. If they don’t discover information first, they discount anyone else bringing it to them.)

Now, twenty years later, an independent tribunal has unanimously concluded that organ harvesting in communist China takes place on “a significant scale.”

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale,” said chair of the tribunal, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, as reported by The Epoch Times. “The panel further concluded that adherents of the spiritual practice Falun Gong have been one of the main sources of organ supply. Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline consisting of meditation exercises and moral teachings based on truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance, has been brutally persecuted by the Chinese regime for the past two decades.”

Breitbart.com also reports:

Gutmann’s research and writing, in conjunction with authors David Kilgour and David Matas, exposed a million-dollar Chinese industry centered around the killing of political prisoners – mostly Falun Gong members, but some Christians, Uighur Muslims, and others considered enemies of the state – and extracting of livers, kidneys, hearts, and other vital organs to sell to buyers in need.

I’ve been reporting this for years on Natural News and other sites, but of course we are banned by the communist-linked tech giants like Facebook and Twitter for daring to tell the truth about the organ harvesting factories in China.

The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Storeand help support this news site.

Now, organ harvesting is being carried out in Canada, too

Following in the footsteps of the communist Chinese, Canada is now pursuing organ harvesting from euthanized patients. As reported by LifeSiteNews:

[T]he Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has issued guidelines for how the harvesting of organs from people who elect to be killed by medical practitioners should work. Despite some hand-wringing about ethics, the June 3 document allows doctors to canvas their vulnerable, suicidal patients for their organs.

Even worse, it is well known that doctors and hospitals, driven by extreme greed and cruelty, often kill patients through the process of harvesting their organs. In other words, the patients aren’t really dead until the organ harvesting begins. As explained via LifeSiteNews:

Alex Schadenberg of Canada’s Euthansia Prevention Coalition believes that accepting organs from euthanasia victims will indeed lead to death by organ donation.

“The acceptance of organ donation after euthanasia leads to the pressure to do euthanasia by organ donation,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“The concept that organ donation and euthanasia can be separated is false. The person will be prepared for the organ donation and the euthanasia simultaneously to make the procedure most effective.”

It is in the financial interests of the doctors, organ transplant surgeons and medical facilities, in other words, to not really wait until the patient is dead before harvesting their organs. The more “fresh” the organs are, the more successful the chances of transplant surgery involving a recipient. Yes, the euthanasia in Canada is by consent, which makes it different from China’s forced political prisoner executions and organ harvesting operations, but organ harvesting is a slippery slope, and Canada is now on that slope with apparently nothing stopping doctors from being caught up in conflicts of interest that benefit the medical establishment, not individual patients.

Doctors don’t wait for patients to die before harvesting their organs

As published in a Medicine.news article that I authored, a new science study proves that doctors do not wait for patients to die before harvesting their organs:

…you’re still alive, conscious and aware for several minutes after your heart stops beating. Just because the heart stops doesn’t instantly disconnect the activity of the brain.

“This means you are essentially ‘trapped’ inside your dead body with your brain still working,” reports Fox News. If you’re an organ donor, that’s the moment in which doctors slice into your body without using anesthesia (since they assume you’re dead) and start rapidly harvesting your organs. You feel every bit of it, but you’re trapped inside your body and can’t move or even scream.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-06-22-canada-begins-harvesting-organs-from-euthanized-humans.html

 

Abortion outrage: Mums should be allowed to terminate newborns, say Australian academics

Continuing on with the extermination theme.  It just gets sicker. So… their argument in a nutshell:

“…a mother who is unwilling to care for her child outweighs an infant’s right to life…”

From thedailytelegraph.com.au

KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal.

Their argument, that it is morally the same as abortion, has forced theBritish Medical Journal to defend its publication of their views.

In an article that has sparked outrage around the world and elicited death threats, Monash and Melbourne University academics argue that a foetus and a newborn both lack a sense of life and aspiration.

They argue this justifies “after-birth abortion” on the proviso it is painless as the baby is not missing out on a life it cannot contemplate.

The doctors of philosophy argue in the BMJ publication Journal of Medical Ethics that one-third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed in the womb, which means mothers of children with severe disabilities should have the chance to end a child’s life after, as well as before, birth.

However, the pair also want the principle of killing newborns extended to healthy babies, because a mother who is unwilling to care for it outweighs an infant’s right to life.

In the article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, the authors argue: “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.”

They also write that the practice should be called “after-birth abortion” and not “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child”.

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

Although the authors claim that the “moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense”, they concede it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a “person”.

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said the articlehad “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

He defended the article, saying the arguments in the paper were not new. “The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”

He said that “more than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Originally published as Killing newborns ‘should be allowed’

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/abortion-outrage-mums-should-be-allowed-to-terminate-newborns-say-australian-academics/news-story/05da73dcef423139d0b5003ca8d05346

Children as young as nine are being euthanized in Belgium

“Last year, a member of the euthanasia commission resigned in protest because it refused to recommend prosecution when a woman with dementia who had not requested euthanasia was nevertheless put to death at her family’s request.

Since then, 360 Belgian doctors, academics and others have signed a petition calling for tighter controls on euthanasia for psychiatric patients.”

Opinion writer

August 6

Deliberately taking a small child’s life is unlawful everywhere in the world, even when the child is terminally ill and asks a doctor to end his or her suffering once and for all.

There is an exception to this rule: Belgium. In 2014, that country amended its law on euthanasia, already one of the most permissive in the world, authorizing doctors to terminate the life of a child, at any age, who makes the request.

For a year after the law passed, no one acted on it. Now, however, euthanasia for children in Belgium is no longer just a theoretical possibility.

Between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2017, Belgian physicians gave lethal injections to three children under 18, according to a July 17 report from the commission that regulates euthanasia in Belgium.

The oldest of the three was 17; in that respect, Belgium was not unique, since the Netherlands permits euthanasia for children over 12.

Everywhere else in the world, the law reflects powerful human intuitions, moral and practical: that it is wrong to abandon hope for a person so early in life, no matter the illness; that it is absurd to grant ultimate medical autonomy to someone too young to vote or legally consent to sex; and that even the best-intentioned fallible human beings should not be entrusted with such life-and-death power.

READ MORE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/children-are-being-euthanized-in-belgium/2018/08/06/9473bac2-9988-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bedd957c6b9b

American Medical Association sliding toward support of physician-assisted suicide… here come the death panels

(Natural News) Will the American Medical Association soon be in favor of physician-assisted suicide? In early June, the AMA decided not to reaffirm its position against assisted suicide – a decision which has shocked many. But indeed, the AMA has gone against its own Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, which recommended the AMA maintain its opposition of euthanasia for humans.

Advocates for assisted suicide have been very successful at opening doors for euthanasia in medicine. In some states, affiliate groups have already taken a more neutral stance on this issue, paving the way for legislators to approve the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. While proponents of euthanasia say that their cause gives patients the right to a dignified death, the issue isn’t really that cut and dry. There are substantial concerns about the potential for abuse and coercion. Inevitably, this could give rise to an untold number of citizens quietly being put to death against their will – while no one will be the wiser.

Experts warn against assisted suicide

Matt Vallière, the Executive Director of Patients Rights Action Fund, told Life News that he, and other advocates for patients’ rights, are very concerned about the AMA’s sudden change of heart.

“The American Medical Association’s decision to not confirm their own Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs’ recommendation – namely that they maintain their opposition to assisted suicide – does not take into account that this bad public policy puts vulnerable patients at high risk for coercion, mistakes and even abuse. Although the AMA’s opposition position still stands for now, a referral back to CEJA is a lost opportunity and a failure to stand against a policy that has grave consequences for everyone, but especially persons living with illness, disabilities, or socio-economic disadvantage. Assisted suicide is not medical care,” Vallière stated.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-17-american-medical-association-sliding-toward-support-of-physician-assisted-suicide-death-panels.html

The De Facto Murder of Alfie Evans

Don’t imagine Kiwis that decisions to end lives are not being taken in NZ. I personally have heard stories of the elderly & what is happening at the end of their lives.  Watch out for the Liverpool Care Pathway. Google that with ‘UK’ and you will see how you could be denied food & water even under this plan of ‘care’. Some without their families’ knowledge. A post is coming on this topic. Watch your loved ones in hospital & be closely involved & informed on their care plan. EnvirowatchRangitikei

Dame Right

By: Aedan Sara O’Connor

Proponents of socialized medicine proclaim that we need single payer health care to save the lives of children. They ignore programs like Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), that covers all kids, to purport that there are kids dying under the current health program and push socialized medicine. But how does socialized medicine really treat children? With most cases, children get healthcare, after increased waiting times but every once in a while we see a case that highlights the depravity of a socialist system, when care is rationed and controlled.

Alfie Evans is one of those cases. Alfie Evans was a 23 month old with an undiagnosed supposed neurodegenerative condition. He was expected to die after a year in the British hospital system. His parents disputed that Alfie’s diagnosis was terminal since they were unsure what he had. The British healthcare system refused to continue looking for…

View original post 652 more words

Little Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; in a UK hospital steeped in a horrifying history of organ harvesting from human babies

Don’t imagine Kiwis that decisions to end lives are not being taken in NZ. This has been up over two weeks now & only five shares. Proves to me folks are oblivious. I personally have heard stories of the elderly & what is happening at the end of their lives.  Watch out for the Liverpool Care Pathway. Google that with ‘UK’ and you will see how you could be denied food & water even under this plan of ‘care’. Some without their families’ knowledge. A post is coming on this topic. Watch your loved ones in hospital & be closely involved & informed on their care plan. EnvirowatchRangitikei


(Natural News) Watching in horror the “health care” murder of baby Alfie Evans over the last few days, I’ve been gathering an array of stories and sources to bring you a detailed, definitive report of what actually went down. Until that full report is ready, however, it seems urgent to share with you the conclusion of my research: I am convinced that Baby Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection, and the hospital that murdered him appears to be the center hub of a multi-decade baby organ harvesting crime ring that saw 100,000 baby body parts harvested and illegally held in hospitals all across Britain. (See multiple news sources, below.)

alfie-evans-executed-lethal-injection-organ-trade
Alfie at Alder Hey Hospital UK [Photo:NaturalNews]
It has always been clear that the Alder Hey children’s hospital sought to accelerate the death of Alfie Evans while silencing his parents through a sustained attack consisting of threats and intimidation tactics. Now, Life Site News is report that Alfie Evans was injected with four different drugs by hospital staff just two hours before he died. This, of course, was after several days of being starved to death and denied water. Virtually the entire corporate-controlled media has withheld this information from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons that I will discuss in another post.

Via LifeSiteNews.com:

UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting…

[A] nurse entered the child’s cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.


Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.


Alder Hey hospital doctors had previously conveyed to the Evans’ family in a legal document how they intended to use a drug cocktail that included Midazolam and Fentanyl as part of Alfie’s “end of life care plan.” Side effects of the drugs included respiratory depression. Tom Evans called it an “execution plan” for his son.

Keep in mind that the hospital forced Alfie’s parents to read a so-called “hostage letter” to the press, and they stated that the family would be punished because of the poor attitude of the parents who apparently didn’t go along with the hospital’s plan to murder their baby. As LifeSiteNews reports:

The day prior to Alfie’s death, Tom Evans read to the press outside the hospital what is now being called by many a “hostage letter.” In what appeared to be a forced statement, Tom read out a letter calling all the supporters of Alfie to go home and resume their lives. He thanked the hospital staff for their care of Alfie, even though just hours earlier he had attempted to have them charged with conspiracy to murder his son.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-01-alfie-evans-executed-by-lethal-injection-organ-harvesting-alder-hey.html

If you do not want to see euthanasia legalized in NZ – you need to make a submission – date’s been extended (info & template included)

If you do not agree with euthanasia & do not want it legalized in NZ, you can go to the website below & make a submission. For more information on what is entailed with this Bill, read at the website. They’ve done a good comprehensive overview of the pertinent points and included info from other countries that have already enabled euthanasia.

From familyfirst.org.nz

The Select Committee considering David Seymour’s euthanasia bill (whose members interestingly ALL voted for euthanasia in the 1st Reading!) have set the deadline for submissions as soon as 20 February 2018. They seem to be hoping that you’ll be too distracted by the festive and holiday season to get around to making a submission against the bill. Let’s disappoint them!

So we’ve done all the ‘prep work’ for you.

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2017/12/euthanasia-its-time-to-make-a-submission-heres-all-the-info-you-need/