Oh, they don’t murder every baby. Just the babies that the National Health Service needs to murder in order to hit its ‘death pathway’ quotas thinks aren’t possible to save.
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.
…If you are the sort of person whose fingers start to involuntarily clench into fists when you contemplate a health care rationing system where possibly your baby’s life depends on your ability to convince a hospital bureaucrat that s/he should cut operating costs someone else then you probably shouldn’t click that link this morning. I recommend that you click it sometime, though: a lot of people in this country seem to think that Great Britain’s National Health Service is something to emulate. And a rather smaller, yet still frighteningly large, number of people seem to think that murdering babies is likewise something to emulate. I hate telling people to wade into the muck like this, but some of our opponents are already down there…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: This is not about abortion. This is about the National Health Service deliberately engaging in post-natal murder. And let me save some time for lurkers at the comments section at RedState: if your particular life path has put you somewhere where you have to argue that deliberately dehydrating and starving a baby to death is not murder, and is in fact a [insert weasel-word adjective or adjectives here] necessary activity, then you have significantly more problems to deal with than this post.
PPS: If you are unfamiliar with the Liverpool Care Pathway please click that link.
RT @moelane: The National Health Service murders babies in Great Britain.: http://t.co/Fe3psv9u
Let’s just call it what it really is: Infanticide.
The mental disease of tacit or explicit support for what Gator rightly labels “infanticide” is far too widespread for my taste. I still remember hearing with some dismay about a professor of philosophy who approved the standard pro-life line that there was really no difference between a late-development fetus and a newborn infant…and then argued, based on that foundation, that it was morally unproblematic to kill newborns for several weeks after birth. I can’t say surprise…because the professor in question was Peter Singer…but still, that was dismaying. Minds like these are behind the NHS, people.
That fits with these so-called ethicists philosophy, from Australia:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/02/29/journal-medical-ethics-paper-after-birth-abortion-why-should-baby-live
I don’t see any difference between the indifferent slaughter of the vulnerable and helpless, the disabled, the elderly, the Jews and the political enemies that the Nazis carried out…from the modern day promotion of abortion. The tract is the same. If one is of no “use” to society–young or old–then the fascists state seeks your termination. Only a tiny jump from there to exterminating perceived enemies of the state.
Genocide is genocide.
Or, more aptly, eugenics is eugenics. Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) was very explicit in her goal of convincing the “undesirables” to voluntarily make themselves biological dead ends. The modern-day bioethics of socialism is just taking that seed to it’s final conclusion: remove the decision from the “undesirables” to a faceless bureaucracy that knows better.
That’s what socialism does to people. The more ‘free’ stuff they get, the more ‘free’ stuff they demand, and dead babies are a small price for someone else to pay to keep their stuff ‘free’.
I have already dealt with this on “the other side.” My dad had mild alzheimers – not debilitating, but he forgot a lot of recent items. He also, unbeknownst to us as he went into the hospital, had reached the point where he needed dialysis. He probably had needed it before – but the kidney doctors stated that he was fine, while his health declined. In the hospital, they wanted to discharge him – a few more weeks in a nursing home and he would be as good as new. Except I got a nurse to hand over his chem panels – it was like pulling teeth (and later, all the nurses told us we couldn’t get them, even though we had full medical authority). I started to track his kidney health levels and figured out that the tons of fluid they were pushing through his system was the only thing keeping them going. I got the doctors to admit that he had kidney failure – but had one doctor tell me he had discussed this with my dad, and my dad had said he didn’t want dialysis. “Did you tell him he would die without it?” No, the doctor responded. They also felt the need to hide that from us – in his records.
My dad chose 6 months later not to continue his dialysis. It was his choice. But it won’t be that way from now on for lots of seniors like him. And Moe is correct in stating that they will be looking at the kids next. God help you if you are an unproductive, slightly mentally impaired adult. They’ll be coming for them too.
I have argued that the discussions of medicare and the various political issues surrounding it are useless. Dementia, kidney disease, diabetes – these account for almost 40% of medicare costs. The answer is not shuffling the deck chairs. Its a focused medical research program. We are close in many ways – the same group that has created a real working bladder grown from adult stem cells is working on kidney, liver, and heart replacements using similar techniques. Yet while Obambi spends 100’s of billions on renewable energy – when we have a cheap supply of energy at market driven prices – the NIH kidney research program received under $2 billion. I’m not one that thinks we should be doing more government funding, but we can pay for it in two ways. By taking care of sick people and letting them suffer as the programs disintegrate (or as doctors try to push them to the grave) or curing them. When republicans argue about cutting this or that, they are viewed as skin flints. Obambi and his groups can lie and say that Obambicare is the cure for what ails us, all the while getting the charnel house ready. Republicans can do better – because we can focus on creating a program that creates hope, not despair.
Seeing it more and more with elderly patients. Phrases like ” death with dignity” are thrown about to justify denial of care
RT @moelane: The National Health Service murders babies in Great Britain.: http://t.co/Fe3psv9u
But funding for AIDs research still dominates NIH & NSF medical research program.
Auburn University thinks they may have a breakthrough on an HIV vaccination… at least they did a few days ago. Not sure what happened with that.