Death Panels for Babies now being used under ‘death pathways’ name

‘‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die’

By SUE REID | MAILONLINE | NOVEMBER 30, 2012

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a  baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

Read Full article →

Time Magazine promotes Death Care Agenda

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 7, 2012

The new ‘pull the plug’ care system is now being celebrated by re-known writers and philanthropists as a way to cut down healthcare costs. Not a word about preventive care, though. In an article authored by writer Joe Klein, Time praises the goodness of austere medical care when it comes to keeping the elderly alive, and how doctors together with sons or daughters make the decision about whether a sick, old person should live or not.

The June 11 issue of Time Magazine sells the idea that is should be fine for anyone to decide on someone else’s health or death based on the premise that it will help save resources for others who remain alive, or as Bill Gates said, to hire more teachers. In a video interview, Joe Klein explains how the Geisinger medical system helped him during a time when he was not convinced what to do with his sick parents.

The phone call came on a cloudy morning in Iowa. I was interviewing Senator Chuck Grassley in his farm kitchen, surrounded by a sea of corn. Mom was back in the hospital again. She had pneumonia. She wasn’t eating. “If we don’t put in a feeding tube,” my mother’s internist told me, “she won’t survive on her own.”

Mom had always been vehement about how she wanted to go. “Just pull the plug. Let me die,” she would say, with more than a hint of melodrama. “I don’t want to be a vegetable.” But was she a vegetable now? She had…

See Klein’s video on Time Magazine’s page here. In the video, he sort of blames the traditional medical system for providing services or procedures that he says aren’t necessary, and that doctors usually request because most doctors are paid based on the number of services or procedures they ask patients to take. Klein says that the Geisinger model is better than the traditional one because it saves money as it rations care for patients under the doctor’s guidance and a son or a daughter’s decision not to feed a parent with a tube, but to let him or her die.

One of the biggest cheerleaders of the Geisinger model is US president Barack Obama, whose death panels ran by people who believe that saving a money in the government run healthcare system must come before providing care to an elderly or sick patient. During a September 9, 2009 speech in Congress, Obama spoke about how rationed medicine implemented by the Geisinger system was an example of high quality care at a lower cost. He did not mention, though, that the costs are reduced due to the denial of care, not because the services are somehow cheaper as provided by Geisinger medical centers.

Joe Klein himself admits that the Obama administration wants to change healthcare by moving it in the direction of the Geisinger system. He portrays doctors as bad people because “they do not want to be told what to do,” says Klein. He believes that this opposition stems from the fact that doctors income would be greatly reduced and not because doctors actually know better what services and procedures are needed in order to save the life of a patient, elderly or otherwise. “Fee for service medicine is more profitable for them”, adds Klein. For Mr. Klein just as for Mr. Obama and his advisers, the extra test or monitoring of a patient is often unnecessary even though those tests are the closest thing to preventive medicine. Meanwhile, the establishment of real preventive care is continuously denied by the corporate-controlled healthcare system that refuses to offer it to patients.

In the case of Klein’s father, he says the doctors at Geisinger advised him not to hydrate his dad because even if he did that, he would have to be back in the hospital in a few weeks due to his kidney problems. In his mind, keeping his father properly hydrated to have him around for a longer period of time was not worth the expense that the medical care system would have to endure. According to Klein, the doctors kindly convinced him that it was better to let his dad go. “That level of candor is the kind of thing that most people do not get from fee for service medical doctors,” said Mr. Klein. “That’s what made the death of my parents tolerable,” he concluded.

“For five months, I was my parents’ death panel. And where the costly chaos of Medicare failed, a team of salaried doctors and nurses offered a better way,” reads one of Joe Klein’s revealing comments about his experience. That is what the Obama administration and any other government that advocates for the unsustainable government-controlled socialized medicine model want everyone to have access to. Socialized medicine is not about providing medical care at a lower cost which makes it accessible to most people, but about reducing the costs of medical attention by letting people die when they are no longer profitable. Socialized medicine, for example, does not invest anything more than the current system into preventing disease, which most doctors do not even know how to do. An initiative to fund preventive medicine instead of providing resources to corporate-controlled healthcare systems or government managed Obamacare, would greatly reduce the costs of medical attention without having to choose between keeping a parent alive or hiring a new teacher.

The only thing more successful for big government than establishing death panels composed by bureaucrats who decide whether a person lives or not, is to actually convince people that death panels is the way to go and to turn them into their relatives’ own death panels, as Joe Klein confesses he was in the case of his parents. Under the new medical system that is taking root in the United States, quality care is synonymous with rationed care. To say that the current medical care system is bad because doctors issue requests for services and procedures that may or may not be necessary, but that people can trust other medical professional in hospices because for some reason they are more ethical about providing care, is simply preposterous. On the contrary, in a rationed care system, medical professionals are assured to receive a minimum compensation they are comfortable with, which might facilitate their decision not to provide care to patients if they believe it is not necessary or worthwhile and that it would lower the costs of the most likely government-controlled medical system.

A healthcare system that promotes austerity and rationing for patients is not one that will offer the best care for patients, especially for elderly people, but one that will look for every possible reason not to provide much needed medical attention. Its goal is to cut expenses, not to improve the life of the patient. It is naive to believe that doctors under the Geisinger or any other rationed system will have the interests of the patient at heart when they don’t have any incentive to do so. In fact, their incentive is mostly to cut costs and deny care while making the choice of death look kind and benevolent.

The way to solve the debacle of the medical care system anywhere is to prohibit the medical industry from writing the laws that govern such system, invest in preventive care and not in the perpetuation of the mass drugging of the population, to actually prepare doctors to treat patients as supposed to put them on pharmaceuticals — which by the way kill more people than they help — for the rest of their lives and to educate people about the the thousands of poisonous ingredients being put in the food and water, so that they can choose not to consume them. A good healthcare system is not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have great care without rationing.

Bill Gates Favors Death Panels and Vaccines for Depopulation

by Theodora Filis
UK Progressive
February 16, 2012

When Bill Gates, founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides vaccines to third world countries, promoted decreasing the population of the world and favoring the ‘death panel’, it shocked many people. Bill Gates believes that “instead of spending millions of dollars on old people who just have months to live, the money should be spent elsewhere, where it can actually benefit people”.

Two years ago, the Microsoft billionaire, unveiled his mission to reduce the world’s population through vaccines during a TEDx presentation. As Gates rambles on about CO2 emissions, and its effects on climate change, he injects without pause, that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” He then goes on to describe how the first number, P (for People) might be reduced.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people”, said Gates, “that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

In January 2010, at the Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (€7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world.

For those who haven’t figured it out, the primary focus of the Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.

How could that be a bad thing? Sounds like noble philanthropic work, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught forcing dangerous (unsafe, untested or proven harmful) vaccines onto Third World populations – vaccines they cannot get rid of in the West. Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.

 

Back in May of 2009, The London Times reported that some of the “richest people in the world met in New York to discuss their favorite causes”. The group, which included such notables as Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, decided, during that meeting, their money would best be spent on reducing the world’s population.

Read Full Article…

England Begins Rationing Health Services

The Independent
July 28, 2011

Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for “non-urgent” conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.

Examples of the rationing now being used include:

* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems “substantially” affect their ability to work.

* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering “chronic continuous pain”, ulceration or bleeding.

* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.

* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in “exceptional circumstances” and after monitoring for six months.

* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.

The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.

Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.

Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.

Medway had deferred treatment for non-urgent procedures this year while Dorset is “looking at reducing the levels of limited effectiveness procedures”.

Chris Naylor, a senior researcher at the health think tank the King’s Fund, said the rationing decisions being made by PCTs were a consequence of the savings the NHS was being asked to find.

Read Full Article…

Death is “Reasonable” to Save Society

Jurriaan Maessen

In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):

Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”

The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases

The Main Stream Media has helped push the idea that it is fine to kill oneself to save the planet, or to let the elderly die for the sake of Society.

have an opportunity to thrive and wreak havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:

“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”

Another proposal reads as follows:

“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).

From Ehrlich we switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:

“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”

“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”

The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:

Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”

In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are after you and your children.