Author Topic: Obama/NWO Heathcare Plan - Only a Cat 6 Pandemic could allow such insanity  (Read 8113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Germany's Socialized Medicine


http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//psychiatry.html

1. German Psychiatry
The participation of physicians, especially psychiatrists, in the Holocaust is unprecedented in history. The crimes of German Psychiatry are unique and unprecedented in the history of mankind. The mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals was prepared and preceded by the medicalized mass murder of mental patients.

2. Prior to the Nazis Period
Long before the Nazis came to power psychiatrists in Germany referred to their "patients" in an inhuman manner, and consequently argued for and used inhuman methods of "treatment".
Emil Kraeplin, 1918: "An absolute ruler who unscrupulously interfered with human habits would, without any doubt, and in the course of only a few decades, effect a decline in memtal debility".
In 1931, Hermann Simon, director of the Anstalt (mental institution) in Gütersloh, precisely defined those categories of people deemed to be inferior. These included: the physically ill, the invalid, the weak, the imbecile, the crippled, and the insane. Simon concludes: "Some must die".
Ernset Rüdin, 1934: "The psychiatrist and healthy people are allies against the genetically defect. The psychiatrist must render his service in the furtherance of a hereditary pure, able and superior race."
Rüdin, who regarded compulsory sterilization as the "most humane act of mankind", says in 1934 about Hitler: "Only Adolf Hitler's political work made it possible to raise and strengthen people's awareness of the meaning and importance of the purity of race. Our dream, which we have had for the past 30 years, has finally become reality."

"The Nazis did not need German Psychiatry, German Psychiatry needed the Nazis." (Ernst Klee)

3. Chronological Table
30.01.1933    Appointment of Hitler as "Reichskanzler".
22.03.1933    Opening of Dachau, the first concentration camp.
24.03.1933    Passing of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz". Hitler aquires unrestrictive power.
14.07.1933    Passing of the "Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses" (Law to prevent hereditary disease).
Between 1934 and 1939 circa 400,000 persons were sterilised.
18.10.1935    Passing of the "Gesetz zum Schutz der Erbgesundheit des Deutschen Volks" ("Ehegesundheitsgesetz") (Law to protect the genetic health of the German Nation (Marriage Health Law)).
1.09.1939    German troops invade Poland. Start of World War II.
1.09.1939    Decree to end sterilisation.
1.09.1939    Hitler personally signs the "Euthanasie-Erlaß" (Euthanasia Decree)
September 1939    Murder of patients in Polish psychiatric institutions.
October - December 1939    Beginning of "Aktion T 4"
· Founding of the central organization (Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Heil- und Pflegeanstalten, gemeinnützige Krankentransportgesellschaft, gemeinnützige Stiftung für Anstaltspflege, Zentralverrechnungsstelle Heil- und Pflegeanstalten), located at Tiergartenstraße 4, in Berlin.
· Reporting to Berlin of all hospitalised patients.
· Establishment of the killing machinery in six psychiatric hospitals.
End of 1939 - 24.08.1941    Murder of 70,000 psychiatric patients within the German Reich.
15.01.1940    Decree to report all Jewish patients, and the beginning of their killing after transferral to psychiatric institutions in the "Generalgouvernement" Poland (primarily Cholm near Lublin).
1940    Beginning of the establishment of 21 children's units.
By 1945 circa 10,000 children and youths were murdered in these.
24.08.1941    Conclusion of "Aktion T 4".
17.11.1942    Introduction of the "Hungerkost" (Starvation Diet) in many Reich institutions.
Circa 90,000 people died as a result of this.
6.04.1944    Decree to establish "Ostarbeiter-Sammelstellen" (units for forced labour from east European countries) in 11 psychiatric institutions.
Beginning of the killing of the "useless" forced labourers.
1942 - 1945    Time of the "wilde Euthanasie" (wild euthanasia).
In circa 15 institutions special wards were installed. Here patients were mainly killed with Luminal and Morphium-Scopolamin injections.



4. Action T 4
On 1st September 1939, the "Ethanasieerlaß" (Euthanasia Decree) was disclosed to the directors of psychiatric institutions inside Germany's prewar boundaries. The directors were ordered to send a registration form for each patient to a specifically created administration in Berlin, in order to ascertain if the patient fulfilled the necessary criteria for death. A group of well-know psychiatrists was appointed as "T 4 Gutachter" (T 4 Experts), who re-examined the registration forms. One group of experts travelled from institution to institution in order to check the completeness and correctness of the reports, especially with those few institution directors who tried to delay the reports.

Six institutions within Germany's prewar boundaries were emptied of their patients and gas chambers were installed. A transport company, specially founded for this purpose, brought the selected patients from the psychiatric hospitals to the extermination institutions, mostly in groups of 40 to 120 patients. Immediately on arrival the patients were undressed, photographed, numbered with a stamp on the shoulder or arm, briefly seen by a doctor who checked their identity by means of a file, whereupon they were led into the gas chamber. Carbon Monoxide was introduced into the chamber while a doctor observed through a window.
After death gold teeth were extracted and the bodies burned in crematoriums. Relatives received a report that the person concerned had died of an illness.

It was not possible to keep these proceedings secret. The staff of the hospitals of origin as well as relatives soon became aware of the fate of the patients. There were relatives who protested, and there were staff of hospitals who advised relatives to take patients home in order to save them from this fate. Thereby, a few were able to be rescued from death.
A total of 70,273 people were killed in these six institutions.
Due to increasing public criticism, and for organizational reasons, this action was terminated by a decree on 24th August 1941.

5. Euthanasia of Children

     

"...möchte ich Sie noch höflichst bitten, mir folgende Fragen zu beantworten:", Beate Passow, 1996.
"...I want to most courteously ask you to answer the following questions:", Beate Passow, 1996.

Children were excluded from Aktion T 4, but by October 1939 a special children's unit was established in Görden, where the killing of children began. After the termination of "Euthanasia Aktion T 4" in August 1941, the euthanasia of children was systematically developed. At least 21 special units were established within Germany's prewar boundaries. The directors of the units were authorised to kill children. Children were transferred to these wards from hospitals and welfare organisations who selected them for the euthanasia programme. They were then transferred to special units after approval by the Central Organisation in Berlin. Children were transferred to these special wards as "observation cases". The doctor responsible then made a report, by which the central office in Berlin decided if the child should continue to be observed, or killed. The latter were given Luminal in tablet form, or mixed with food, wherupon they became unconscious and died after two to five days. Sometimes Morphium Scopolamin was injected.
Circa 5,000 children were killed within Germany's prewar boundaries, for example in Bavaria 695 children were killed.

This programme was scientifically promoted and organised by the universities.
The resistance of psychiatrists to this programme was strongest. So many left their appointments that there became a shortage of doctors. In June 1943 the professors Rüdin, De Crinis, Carl Schneider, Heinze and Nitsche sent a memorandum to the "Generalkommissar des Führers für das Sanitäts- und Gesundheitswesen", Professor Karl Brandt, which contains the following sentence: "There has been an exodus of capable doctors from Psychiatry into other medical areas."

Hamburg:
The mentally handicapped, who were systematically murdered by the Nazis during the war as they were considered to be a burden to society, and not regarded as being worthy of life, are amoung the most frequently "forgotten" victims of national socialism.
Mentally handicapped Jews were especially vulnerable as they had no chance of emigrating.
Such an example in Hamburg was the treatment of handicapped patients in the Alsterdorf Institution. From 1937 onward, Pastor Lensch, the head of the institution, attempted not to admit any more Jewish patients, and to quickly transfer the more than 20 Jewish patients already living in the institution to other mental institutions. He later justified this policy by alleging that the charitable status of the institution was threatened. This was a pretext as the Hamburg authorities wanted to accommodate mentally handicapped patients in Alsterdorf at this time.
On 31st October 1938, 16 Jewish mentally handicapped patients were deported to the state-run Langenhorn institution, and further patients soon followed them there, or were transferred to other state-run institutions such as that in Farmsen.
On 23rd September 1940, the first 150 Jewish patients were deported to Langenhorn nursing home and murdered there. This was referred to as "euthenasia". Amoung those murdered were patients who had been expelled from the Alsterdorf Institution.
A total of over 3,000 handicapped people from Hamburg were murdered in this way during the war.

The Evangelische Stiftung Alsterdorf has since confronted itself with its history during the Nazi period, and has erected a memorial to the deported victims, of whom many were non-Jews, in the institution's entrance at No. 3 Dorothea-Kasten-Straße, 22297 Alsterdorf.

6. Death by Starvation
On 15th November 1942 a conference of directors of all Bavarian psychiatric hospitals was held in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. After the war, a participant of this conference reported the following to the American investigating authorities:
"In November 1942 the medical directors of all Bavarian psychiatric hospitals were summonded, by secret letter, to the Health Department of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in Munich. The meeting was immediately declared secret. The directors had to justify the number of deaths in their institutions, which had risen in number due to starvation and tuberculosis. Despite this, the chairman explained that far too few patients were dying, and that it was not necessary to treat arising illnesses.
The director of the Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Kaufbeuren gave a short explanation of his personal procedure. Initially, he had been opposed to euthanasia, but when he learnt of the official statistics, he regretted that euthanasia had been stopped. He now gave patients in his institution, that would have formerly come within the euthanasia programme, a completely fat-free diet; he especially stressed fat-free. The patients died of famine edema within three months. He recommended this procedure to all institutions as being what was called for.
The chairman accepted this recommendation, and gave the immediate order that this "starvation diet" be put into practice in all institutions. There was to be no written order, but it would be checked whether the order had been followed or not."

The starvation diet was introduced in many hospitals, first in Bavaria, and later nationwide.
Around 90,000 people died either directly as a result of the starvation diet, or indirectly from a starvation induced illness, mainly tuberculosis.

7. Human Experiments
It is only in recent years that it has come to light that "medical" experiments on humans were also performed in psychiatric institutions. To this date little is known of these experiments. It is also still unclear what the purpose of the I.G. Farben laboratories were, which were installed in many psychiatric institutions.
At the beginning of the 1990s, G. Schaltenbrand's experiments were discussed again. In 1940, in the Werneck psychiatric hospital, he had injected chronic mentally ill patients intradernally and cisternally with spinal fluid from apes, the latter having been previously injected with spinal fluid from multiple sclerosis patients.

8. Forced Labourers in Psychiatry
On 6th September 1944 the Reichsminister of the Interior ordered the establishment of special units for "Ostarbeiter" (labourers from Eastern Europe) in several psychiatric hospitals in the Reich. The reason given was that: "With the considerable number of "Ostarbeiter" and Poles who have been brought to the German Reich as a labour force, their admission into German psychiatric hospitals as mentally ill patients has become more frequent ...
With the shortage of space in German hospitals, it is irresponsible to treat these ill people, who in the foreseeable future will not be fit for work, for a prolonged period in German institutions."

The exact number of "Ostarbeiter" killed in these psychiatric institutions is as yet not known.
189 "Ostarbeiter" were admitted to the "Ostarbeiter" unit of the Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Kaufbeuren; 49 died as a result of the starvation diet, or from deadly injections.

9. The Psychiatrists
These were:
1. Doctors who were active in and primarily responsible for the different euthanasia organisations.
They directed and administered the different euthanasia programmes.
2. The T 4 Experts, psychiatrists in positions of responsibility, mostly clinic directors, who observed and controlled the selection of those to be killed. They advised those who were primarily responsible, and themselves determined killings and carried them out.
3. Numerous doctors in universities, who laid the scientific foundations of the euthanasia programme and used its victims for scientific purposes.
4. Psychiatrists in institutions involved with these actions and who carried them out with conviction by sending the registrations to Berlin, making transferrals to killing institutions, and participating in killings.
There were also:
1. Psychiatrists who refused to participate in the euthanasia programmes, and who withdrew, were transferred, or retired.
2. Some psychiatrists who secretly tried to save patients, who delayed registration, who did not introduce the starvation diet, etc.
3. Some psychiatrists who actively and openly protested.
This protest did not provoke any disadvantageous consequences.

10. Post-Nazi Death by Starvation
On 28th April 1945, the day of liberation, the Brandenburg Anstalt (mental institution) Teupitz, accommodated 600 inmates. By the end of October, the number had declined to a mere 54.
At the Saxon Anstalt (mental institution) Altscherbitz, more people died in 1945 than during Nazi times. The mortality rate in 1945 was 36·5%, i.e. 838 people. In 1947, the rate rose to 38%, i.e. 887 people.
At the Saxon Anstalt (mental institution) Großschweidnitz, 1,012 inmates died in May 1945 alone.
At the Wurttemberg Anstalt (mental institution) Zwiefalten, the mortality rate in 1945 was 46·5%, double what it was in 1944.
At the Pommeranian Anstalt (mental institution) Ueckermünde, the mortality rate in 1945 was 55%.
At the Anstalt (mental institution) Bernburg/Saale, in 1945 the mortality rate doubled.
During Nazi times Schloß Hoym (Hoym Castle), in Saxony, functioned as a "killing institution" for so-called psychiatric patients in need of constant care. Again mass dying only started after liberation. In 1945 it housed 500 inmates, however the "average demand for coffins" was not less than 250.
At the North Rhine-Westphalia Anstalt (mental institution) Düsseldorf-Grafenberg, the mortality rate between 1946 and 1947 was 55%. In 1948/49 it was still 30%. Prior to Nazi times, the Grafenberg mental institution supplied the pharmaceutical company Bayer-Elberfeld with "test objects" for their anti-malaria research.

Heinz Faulstich was one of the first psychiatrists to document murder by starvation. He gives a minimum number of 20,000 deaths due to starvation in the post-war period. It is impossible to obtain an exact number as many of the relevant asylums and homes have destroyed data and relevant documents.

There is one exception: staff of the Wittenauer Heilstätten, in Berlin, have critically investigated and assessed the historical role of their clinic. Between 1938 and the end of the war, on 24th April 1945, 4,607 patients were killed, usually within 20 days of admittance. After liberation 2,500 people were newly admitted, and 1,400 patients "died" within the same year, i.e. around 55%. In 1957, the institution was renamed the Karl Bonhoeffer Clinic of Neurology. Bonhoeffer played a key part in the "sterilization of the mentally inferior", and, like many others, did so voluntarily. Despite retirement he continued to work for the racial sterilization courts. In December 1941 he examined a Jewish "Mischling" ("half-cast"), who had once been admitted to a psychiatric unit 14 years previously. The NS-Erbgesundheitsgericht (the Court for the Protection of German Blood and Honour) itself hesitated in condemning, as the examined individual showed no symptoms of disease, and worked normally. Nevertheless, Bonhoeffer advised sterilization.

The forcibly sterilized were victims of Nazi Germany's racial policies. However, their victim status has never been legally accepted, thereby preventing these people from being able to claim compensation. They are solely dependent on social support.

The perpetrators were able to further their careers after the war. Further, they shamelessly acted as experts and consultants in cases for compensation, deriding their victims further by declaring that, considering their "inferiority", no signs of emotional damage could be established. One of the most honoured and respected psychiatrists in post-war Germany was Professor Helmut E. Ehrhardt, from 1937 onward member of the NSDAP (National Socialist Workers Party), i.e. the Nazi Party, and professor of Forensic and Social Medicine in Marburg. Ehrhardt frequently functioned as a "whitewasher" of Nazi Psychiatry. He gave his expert opinion to the Federal Ministry of Finance: "To regulate compensation claims of those sterilized would, in most cases, only lead to derision, and could not justify the real thought behind reparation." Ehrhardt was awarded the Paracelsus Medal, the highest honour of the German medical profession. He was also a member of the Mental Health Advisory Board of the World Health Organisation, the Ethical Committee, and the Forensic Section of the World Federation of Psychiatry, of which he eventually became honorary member.

In 1946, the Viennese Professor of Psychiatry, Otto Plötzl, gave medical evidence that poisoning was a particularly humane form of killing because people "slowly drifted" into death. The Viennese forensic medical expert, Leopold Breitenecker, voiced a similar opinion when, in 1967, he said: "Death by gas is one of the most humane forms of death imaginable." Breitenecker was asked to examine Aquilin in testimonies against medical doctors responsible for gassings. Founder of the Austrian Association of Forensic Medicine, he was a member of various ethical committees.

Psychiatrist's protection of their murderous colleagues has always taken priority over the suffering of their victims. This is the only explanation of how Werner Heyde, Professor of Psychiatry and head of gasings was able to practice under the false name of Dr Sawade, and act as an expert for claims of compensation. This is inconceivable without the knowledge of his colleagues.

Protection lasted until death:
  • Lower Saxony's General Medical Council's obituary for Dr Klaus Endruweit, responsible for the gassings at the Anstalt (mental institution) Sonnenstein, in Pirna, states: "We will honour and remember him".
  • The obituary notice of the clinic in Wunstorf for Heinz Heinze, former director of the largest institution for the homicide of children states: "In honoured commemoration".
  • The obituary notice of Kiel University for Professor Werner Catel, who conducted the mass murder of children reads: "he contributed in many ways, to the welfare and well-being of sick children".
  • The obituary notice of the Düsseldorf University Clinic of Psychiatry for Professor Friedrich Panse culmnates with: "A life in the service of suffering people ... is completed". Panse was a T4- advisor who "expertly guided" patients into the gas chambers.


Until today, the perpetrators of these crimes are treated more sympathetically than their victims.
"Those who honour the perpetrators of these crimes kill their victims a second time." (Ernst Klee)

Literature:
Klee, Ernst: Auschwitz, die NS- Medizin und ihre Opfer, S. Fischer, 1997
Klee, Ernst: Dokumente zur Euthanasie, Fischer
Klee, Ernst: Euthanasie im NS- Staat. Die Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens, Fischer, 1985
Klee, Ernst: "Schöne Zeiten", Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer, Fischer, 1988
Im Memoriam, Catalogue to the Exhibition commemorating the victims of the Nazi Euthanasia Programme on the occasion of the XI World Congress of Psychiatry/Hamburg, 1999.
Faulstich, Heinz: Hungersterben in der Psychiatrie 1914-1949. Mit einer Topographie der NS- Psychatrie. Lambertus, 1997.
Leibbrand, W.: Um die Menschenrechte der Geisteskranken, Verlag Die Egge, Rudolf Tauer Nürnberg, 1946.
Mitscherlich, A. und Mielke, F.: Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit, Dokumente des Nürnberger Ärzteprozesses, Fischer Bücherei KG, Frankfurt an Main und Hamburg, 1960.
Dörner, D./Haerlin, C./Rau, V./Schernus, R./Schwendy, A.: Der Krieg gegen die psychisch Kranken, Nach "Holocaust": Erkennen-Trauern-Begegnen, Rehburg-Loccum: Psychiatrie Verlag, 1980.
Schmidt, G.: selektion in der Heilanstalt 1939-1945, suhrkamp taschenbuch, 1943.
Finzen, A.: Auf dem Dienstweg, Die Verstrickung einer Anstalt in die Tötung psychisch Kranker, Rehburg-Loccum: Psychiatrie Verlag, 1983.
Seidel, R./Werner, W.F.: Psychiatrie im Abgrund, Spurensuche und Standortbestimmung nach den NS-Psychiatrie-Verbrechen, Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, Köln, 1991.
Hinterhuber, H.: Ermordet und Vergessen, Nationalsozialistische Verbrechen an psychisch Kranken und Behinderten, VIP.Verlag, Innsbruck-Wien, 1995.
Faulstich, H.: Hungersterben in der Psychiatrie 1914-1949, Mit einer Topographie der NS-Psychiatrie, Lambertus-Verlag, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1998.
Cranach, M. von und Siemen, H.L.: Psychiatrie im Nationalsozialismus, Die Bayerischen Heil- und Pflegeanstalten zwischen 1933 und 1945, R. Oldenbourg Verlag München, 1999.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Fast-track of socialized healthcare imminent!
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2009, 01:40:05 am »
House and Senate Democrats struck a back-room deal that puts socialized healthcare on the fast track as part of Obama's massive, tax-increasing budget.

The budget resolution now moves to the floor of the House and Senate for final votes that could take place any time in the next 48 hours.

This back-room deal means Democrats will only need 50 votes to pass socialized healthcare (not the normal 60 votes), and any real debate will be stifled.

Sen. Judd Gregg compared the fast-track trickery to "embracing"
Hugo Chavez' political strong-arming tactics, and added:

"What you've essentially got here is negotiations where one side decides to pick up a gun and load it, and the other side has the gun pointed at its head."

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=18619&CID=112&RID=17324969

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: Fast-track of socialized healthcare imminent!
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2009, 01:51:57 am »
This back-room deal means Democrats will only need 50 votes to pass socialized healthcare (not the normal 60 votes), and any real debate will be stifled.

"Not the normal 60"??

If it normally takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate, then why would the Vice President ever be needed to break a "tie vote"?

The reason I ask is that I've heard establishment liberals claim that the Democrats can't be blamed for not repealing such things as the Military Commissions Act since they don't have a "super" majority in the Senate.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: Fast-track of socialized healthcare imminent!
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2009, 11:42:21 am »
In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and even your wallet.

It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the "Massachusetts plan." And over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February. Our government will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database.

But that's all about to change. A budget resolution -- to be voted on this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way: If you do not have health insurance -- or, potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have -- the government will force you to purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION: Write your U.S. Senators. Urge them to vote against the budget resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=13066811

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Israel's Socialized Medicine

The Ringworm Children


Synopsis

In the early 1950's, approximately 100,000 immigrant children, primarily from North Africa, received X-ray radiation treatment for ringworm upon their arrival in Israel. At the time, the medical establishment thought ringworm was a grave danger to public health. It was later discovered that these treatments caused high rates of infertility, cancer and death. Through exhaustive research and testimonies of survivors, this emotional documentary unearths a possible conspiracy between American and Israeli health officials to initiate and fund this deadly medical experiment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6118144849760405404

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Russia's Socialized Medicine


Socialized Health-Care Nightmare
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/socialized-health-care-nightmare/
By Yuri N. Maltsev and Louise Omd • November 1994 • Volume: 44 • Issue: 11


Dr. Maltsev gained his insight as an adviser to the last Soviet government on issues of social policy, including health care, and as a patient in the system. He teaches at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Louise Omdahl, a nursing educator and manager, is actively involved in humanitarian assistance through nursing contacts in Russia and has visited numerous Russian health-care facilities.

In 1918, the Soviet Union’ s universal “cradle-to-grave” health-care coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine, was introduced by the Communist government of Vladimir Lenin. “Right to health” was introduced as one of the “constitutional rights” of Soviet citizens. Other socioeconomic “rights” on the “mass-enticing” socialist menu included the right to vacation, free dental care, housing, and a clean and safe environment. As in other fields, the provision of health care was planned and delivered through a special ministry. The Ministry of Health, through its regional Directorates of Health, would pool and distribute centrally provided resources for delivery of medical and sanitary services to the entire population.

The “official” vision of socialists was clean, clear, and simple: all needed care would be provided on an equal basis to the entire population by the state-owned and state-managed health industry. The entire cost of medical services was socialized through the central budget. The advantages of this system were proclaimed to be that a fully socialized health-care system elimi nates “waste” that stems to “unnecessary duplication and parallelism” (i.e., competition) while providing full coverage of all health-care problems from birth until death.

But as we have learned from our own separate experiences, the Russian health care system is neither modern nor efficient.

In contrast to the impression created by the liberal American media, health-care institutions in Russia were at least fifty years behind the average U.S. level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration which paralyzed the system. The part of Russia’s GNP destined for medical needs is negligible1 and, according to our estimates; is less than 2.5 percent (compared to 14 percent in the United States, 11 percent in Canada, 8 percent in the U.K., etc.).

Polyclinics and hospitals in big cities have extremely large numbers of beds allotted for patients reflecting typical megalomania of bureaucratic planning. The number of beds in big cities would usually range from 800 to 5,000 beds. Despite the difference in average length of stay, less than one-half were utilized. In the United States hospital stays for surgery are three to seven days; in Russia stays average three weeks. American mothers typically leave the hospital a day or two after giving birth. New mothers in Russia remain for at least a week. It was explained that the length of stay was necessary due to unavailability of follow-up care after hospitalization. A physician was reluctant to discharge a patient before the majority of healing had occurred. In addition, there was no financial incentive for early discharge, as reimbursement was directly related to number of “patient-days,” not the necessity for those days.
Scarce Supplies, Inadequate Personnel

Supplies are painstakingly scarce—surgeries at a major trauma-emergency center in Moscow that we observed had no oxygen supply for an entire floor of operating rooms. Monitoring equipment consisted of a manual blood pressure cuff, no airway, and no central monitoring of the heart rate. Intravenous tubing was in such poor condition that it had clearly been reused many times. The surgeon’s gloves were also reused and were so stretched that they slid partially off during the surgery. Needles for suturing were so dull that it was difficult to penetrate the skin. All of this took place in 95 degree F temperature with unscreened windows open; though the hospital was built less than twenty years ago, there was no air conditioning.

Utilization of medical/nursing personnel was very different from our model. The ratio of nurses to patients in the ordinary hospitals was 1 to 30, compared to 1 to 5 in the United States. Duties of the nurse ranged from housekeeping to following medical orders. When asked for her “best nurse,” a head nurse in Moscow helped a young woman up from scrubbing the floor. Five minutes later she was practicing intravenous insertions with equipment donated by us. Both of these functions were in her “job description,” however unofficial that may be. Nurses are unlicensed and are not considered an independent profession in Russia. As a result, all their duties are delegated, with assessment and most documentation completed by physicians. The education of nurses occurs at an age comparable to the last two to three years of American high school.2 Nurses are educated by physicians, not other nurses. A separate body of scientific knowledge in nursing does not exist.

The role of a patient advocate, heavily assumed by nurses in the United States was distinctly lacking in Russia. Nurses were subjugated to medical bureaucracy. Patients’ rights and patients’ privacy were all but ignored. There is no legal mechanism to protect patients from malpractice. To our amazement we were asked to photograph freely in patient-care settings without seeking patient consent. Patient education and informed consent were dismissed by the socialized system as an unnecessary increase in time and the cost of care. If the society does not respect individual rights in general, it would not do it in hospitals. The Russian medical oath protects the “good of the people,” not necessarily the “good of the person.”3
Apathy and Irresponsibility

Widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the health-care system in the same way as all other sectors of Russian economy. Irresponsibility, expressed by a popular Russian saying (“They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working.”) resulted in the appalling quality of the “free” services, widespread corruption, and loss of life. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals. To receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel the patient was supposed to pay bribes. Dr. Maltsev witnessed a case when a “non-paying” patient died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia usually would “not be available” for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries, and was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats. Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region in 1987-89, Dr. Maltsev received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities.

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist party officials as early as 1921 (two years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine) realized that the egalitarian system of health care is good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers, but not as private users of the system. So, in all countries with socialized medicine we observe a two-tier system—one for the “gray masses,” and the other, with a completely different level of service for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants. In the USSR it was often the case that while workers and peasants would be dying in the state hospitals, the medicines and equipment which could save their lives were sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.4
A “Privileged Class”?

Western admirers of socialism would praise Russia for its concern with the planned” scientific” approach to childbearing and care of children. “There is only one privileged class in Russia—children,” proclaimed Clementine Churchill on her visit to a showcase Stalinist kindergarten in Moscow in 1947. The real “privileged class”-Stalin’s nomenklatura—were so pleased with the wife of the “chief imperialist” Winston Churchill that they awarded her with an “Order of the Red Banner.” Facts, however, testify to the opposite of Mrs. Churchill’s opinion. The official infant mortality rate in Russia is more than 2.5 times as large as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the U.S. rate of 8.1 percent per 1,000 live births. In the rural regions of Sakha, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of infants fall victim to influenza every year, and the proportion of children dying from pneumonia is on the increase. Rickets, caused by a lack of vitamin D and unknown in the rest of the modern world, is killing many young people.5 Uterine damage is widespread, thanks to the 7.3 abortions the average Russian woman undergoes during childbearing years.

After seventy years of socialist economizing, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals do not have running hot water, while 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia do not have water or sewage. Isn’t it amazing that socialist governments, while developing sophisticated systems of weapons and space exploration would completely ignore basic human needs of their citizens?”It was no secret that on many occasions in the past 70 years, workers’ health had been sacrificed to the needs of the economy—although the cost of treating the resulting diseases had eventually outweighed the supposed gains,”6 stated Russian State Public Health Inspector E. Belyaev.

Man-made ecological disasters like catastrophes at nuclear power stations near Chelyabinsk and then Chernobyl, the literal liquidation of the Aral Sea, serious contamination of the Volga River, Azov Sea and great Siberian rivers, have made unbearable the quality of life both in the major cities and the countryside. According to Alexei Yablokov, the Minister for Health and Environment of the Russian Federation, 20 percent of the people live in “ecological disaster zones,” and an additional 35-40 percent in “ecologically unfavorable conditions.”7 As a sad legacy of the socialist experiment, we observe a marked decline in the population of Russia and experts predict a continuation of this trend through the end of the century. From Russian State Statistical Office data, it appears that in 1993 there were 1.4 million births and 2.2 million deaths. Because of inward migration of Russians from the “near abroad”—former “republics” of the Soviet empire, the net fall in population was limited to 500,000. The dramatic rise in mortality and significant decline in fertility is attributed primarily to the appalling quality of health services, and the deteriorating environment. The head of the Department of Human Resources reckons that the fertility index will remain at around 1.5 until the end of the century, whereas an index of 2.11 would be necessary to maintain the present population.8 But, “the only lesson of history is that it does not teach us anything” says a popular Russian aphorism. Despite the obvious collapse of socialist medicine in Russia, and its bankruptcy everywhere else, it is still alive and growing in the United States. It possesses a mortal danger to freedom, health, and the quality of life for us and generations to come.
Incentives Matter

The chief reason for the dire state of the Russian health-care system is the incentive structure based on the absence of property rights. The current lack of goods and education within health care has caused Russians to look to the United States for assistance and guidance. In 1991 Yeltsin signed into law a Proposal for Insurance Medicine.9 The intent is to privatize the health- care system in the long run and decentralize medical control. “The private ownership of hospitals and other units is seen as a critical determining factor of the new system of ‘insurance’ medicine.”10 It is moving to the direction the United States is leaving—less government control over health care. While national licensing and accreditation within health-care professions and institutions are still lacking in Russia, they are needed for self-governance as opposed to central government control.

Decay and the appalling quality of services is characteristic of not only “barbarous” Russia and other Eastern European nations, it is a direct result of the government monopoly on health care. In “civilized” England, for example, the waiting list for surgery is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State of the art equipment is non-existent in most British hospitals. In England only 10 percent of the health-care spending is derived from private sources. Britain pioneered in developing kidney dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world. The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacement, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain each year.11 Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of health care. In Russia patients over 60 years are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 years are often denied even elementary forms of the health care. In the U.K., in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who were 55 years old were refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. At age 65, 45 percent at the centers were denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely received any medical attention at these centers. In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups—below 45; 45-65; and over 65, in terms of their access to health care. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoy priority treatment.

Socialized medicine creates massive government bureaucracies, imposes costly job-destroying mandates on employers to provide the coverage, imposes price-controls which will inevitably lead to shortages and poor quality of service. It could lead to non-price rationing (i.e., based on political considerations, corruption, and nepotism) of health care by government bureaucrats. Socialized medical systems have not served to raise general health or living standards anywhere. There is no analytical reason or empirical evidence that would lead us to expect it to do so. And in fact both analytical reasoning and empirical evidence point to the opposite conclusion. But the failure of socialized medicine to raise health and longevity has not affected its appeal for politicians, administrators, and intellectuals, that is, for actual or potential seekers of power. []
1.   Pavel D. Tichtchenko and Boris G. Yudin, “Toward a Bioethics in Post-Communist Russia,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, No. 4, 1992, p. 296.
2.   C. Fleischman and V. Lubamudrov, “Heart to Heart: Teaching Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery to Nurses in St. Petersburg, Russia,” Journal of Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 8, No. 2, April, 1993, p. 135.
3.   Pavel D. Tichtchenko and Boris G. Yudin, “Toward a Bioethics in Post-Communist Russia,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, No. 4, 1992, p. 298.
4.   Here in the United States the system of fully socialized medicine is not yet complete, but we already observe the “parallel” system of health care for bureaucrats who enjoy coverage practically unseen in the private sector. Referring to this system, Dr. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation remarked: “Why reinvent the wheel? If a working health-care system already exists, that’s good enough for official Wash-ington, why not to use it as our model, improve upon it and let the rest of America enjoy the same kind of program as members of Congress and Clinton’s White House staff,” Heritage Today, Winter 1994, p. 4.
5.   N. Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism {New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1990), p. 14-15.
6.   The Lancet, Vol. 337, June 15, 1991, p. 1469.
7.   The Economist, November 4, 1989, p. 24.
8.   Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty Daily Report, Feb-mary 16, 1994.
9.   George Schieber, “Health Care Financing Reform in Russia and Ukraine,” Health Affairs, Supplement 1993, p. 294.
10.   Michael Ryan, “Health Care in Moscow, British Medical Journal, Vol. 307, September 1993,” p. 782.
11.   Joseph L. Bast, Richard C. Rue, and Stuart A. Wes-bury, Jr., Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care and What We Can Do About It (Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 1993), p. 101.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Quote
Obama's Healthcare Plan: Case Study: Russia's Socialized Medicine

Many will probably disagree with this, but I think it's misleading to characterize Obama's plan as "socialized" health care, because doing so undoubtedly gives countless people the false impression that it's essentially no different than the single-payer health insurance (whereby the delivery of health care is private, and patients are free to choose their own doctor) that people such as Ralph Nader have been advocating all these years.

An organization called Physicians for a National Health Program explains the difference this way:

------------------------------------

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

[Continued...]

------------------------------------

To those who would argue that there's no meaningful difference between single-payer health insurance, on the one hand, and the "socialized medicine" that Obama advocates, on the other, consider the fact that single-payer advocates initially weren't even invited to Obama's "health care summit" early last month, and that it wasn't until after said advocates threatened to demonstrate outside the White House (thereby blowing the "left cover" that Webster Tarpley has been saying for over a year is the source and foundation of Obama's political power) that invitations were finally--and grudgingly--extended to them.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/6/as_obama_hosts_summit_on_health

This is why I think it makes more sense to call Obama's plan "Soviet-style" health care (as opposed to Canadian-style), or perhaps "Big Brother" health care or "Compulsory Eugenics" health care. Any one of those would be much more accurate, in my view.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I'm not saying I support national single-payer health insurance (I don't, because that's not a legitimate function of the federal government), just that I consider it a far lesser evil than the Sovietized, eugenics-based system that Obama advocates.

I am, however, at least open to the idea of instituting single-payer health insurance at the state level, particularly if it were (a) accompanied by the relegalization of alternative medicine, and (b) funded with a single tax on land values.

But that's another thread.  8)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Many will probably disagree with this, but I think it's misleading to characterize Obama's plan as "socialized" health care, because doing so undoubtedly gives countless people the false impression that it's essentially no different than the single-payer health insurance (whereby the delivery of health care is private, and patients are free to choose their own doctor) that people such as Ralph Nader have been advocating all these years.

An organization called Physicians for a National Health Program explains the difference this way:

------------------------------------

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

[Continued...]

------------------------------------

To those who would argue that there's no meaningful difference between single-payer health insurance, on the one hand, and the "socialized medicine" that Obama advocates, on the other, consider the fact that single-payer advocates initially weren't even invited to Obama's "health care summit" early last month, and that it wasn't until after said advocates threatened to demonstrate outside the White House (thereby blowing the "left cover" that Webster Tarpley has been saying for over a year is the source and foundation of Obama's political power) that invitations were finally--and grudgingly--extended to them.

      http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/6/as_obama_hosts_summit_on_health

This is why I think it makes more sense to call Obama's plan "Soviet-style" health care (as opposed to Canadian-style), or perhaps "Big Brother" health care or "Compulsory Eugenics" health care. Any one of those would be much more accurate, in my view.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I'm not saying I support national single-payer health insurance (I don't, because that's not a legitimate function of the federal government), just that I consider it a far lesser evil than the Sovietized, eugenics-based system that Obama advocates.

I am, however, at least open to the idea of instituting single-payer health insurance at the state level, particularly if it were (a) accompanied by the relegalization of alternative medicine, and (b) funded with a single tax on land values.

But that's another thread.  8)

You know me long enough to know I am using the Bernays strategy on this thread.  I do it because the British Crown's World Health Organization along with Roche, NOVARAX/CDC are forcing us into rapid healthcare legislation.  If the bailout is any indication (and why should it not be) then we can easily see where this is heading.  You cannot with good conscience say that this guy is acting in our best interest. The last 100 days shows that this will be positioned as you say, but before it passes 5,000 new pages to the bill will be added that will essentially be various taxes/population control/eugenics authorities.

Had the record been different and had the pundits not been going crazy over using this manufactured pandemic to force legislation down our throat, I probably would have not used this tact.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline KiwiClare

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Obama's Advisers' Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2009, 06:05:51 pm »
The Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/30/the_attack_on_doctors_hippocratic_oath__96277.html?utm_source=rcpwidget&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=telegraph2009

By Betsy McCaughey

Patients count on their doctor to do whatever is possible to treat their illness. That is the promise doctors make by taking the Hippocratic Oath.

But President Obama's advisers are looking to save money by interfering with that oath and controlling your doctor's decisions.

Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving "overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel argues that "peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians." He has lamented that doctors regard the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgement' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."

Of course, that is what patients hope their doctor will do.

But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in the nation's health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor's decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The legislation sets a goal that every individual's treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care.


Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.

"Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures," he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.

Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:

"Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."

Yet he called it "debatable" whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.

Now that Blumenthal is in charge, he sees problems ahead.

"If electronic health records are to save money," he writes, doctors will have to take "advantage of embedded clinical decision support" (a euphemism for computers instructing doctors what to do).

"If requirements are set too high, many physicians and hospitals will rebel - petitioning Congress to change the law or just resigning themselves to ... accepting penalties," he wrote in NEJM early this month.

The public applauded the new requirement for electronic records, not foreseeing that it would put faceless bureaucrats in charge of your care.

McCaughey is a patient advocate and founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. She is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former lieutenant governor of New York State.
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: Fast-track of socialized healthcare imminent!
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2009, 12:33:34 am »

This back-room deal means Democrats will only need 50 votes to pass socialized healthcare (not the normal 60 votes), and any real debate will be stifled.


Think the only real debate might well be which corporations get a 'piece of the action'.
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline thru the matrix

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Obama's Advisers' Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2009, 06:21:13 pm »
Thanks for this post.
Screenshots are now taken of all my posts immediately after publication.

Contact me anonymously at ContactMeHere

Offline KiwiClare

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,985
  • Either you're with us or with the terrorists
    • Northland New Zealand Chemtrails Watch
Re: Obama's Advisers' Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2009, 12:09:20 am »
Quote
Thanks for this post.
Thank-you.

Doctors face orders to 'kill on demand'
New assisted suicide law requires physicians to act
Posted: May 02, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96777
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Physicians in Montana could be facing "kill-on-demand" orders from patients who want to commit suicide if a district court judge's opinion pending before the state Supreme Court is affirmed.

The case has attracted nominal attention nationwide, but lawyers with the Christian Legal Service have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the pending case because of what it would mean to doctors within the state, as well as the precedent it would set.

The concern is over the attack on doctors' ethics and religious beliefs – as well as the Hippocratic oath – that may be violated by a demand that they prescribe deadly chemicals or in some other way assist in a person's death.

M. Casey Mattox, a lawyer with the CLS, told WND that states allowing a "right to die" across the country – Oregon and Washington – include an opt-out provision for physicians with ethical or religious opposition to participating in killing a patient.

Montana's situation, created late last year in a decision from First District Court Judge Dorothy McCarter in the Baxter et al. v. Montana case, is different. There is no provision for a doctor to refuse such "treatment" for a patient.

Just how did America arrive at a court case ordering doctors to help a suicide? Read it in "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

In that case, Robert Baxter, 75, a retired truck driver from Billings who suffers from lymphocytic leukemia, filed the lawsuit along with four physicians in the state's district court system. They were aided in the case by the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society.

Baxter told the organization's magazine that society already provides death when animals are suffering.

"I just feel if we can do it for animals," Baxter said, "we can do it for human beings."

The CLS, joined by the Christian Medical Association, yesterday filed briefs asking the state Supreme Court to protect the conscience rights of healthcare professionals.

The groups, representing more than 18,000 Christian medical and legal professions, are urging the court to reverse the district court's decision and recognize a right not to participate in assisted suicide.

"The trial court's decision to create a constitutional right to 'obtain assistance from a medical care provider in the form of obtaining a prescription for lethal drugs' threatens the rights of healthcare professionals and institutions that hold sincere ethical, moral, and religious objections to participating in the intentional killing of their patients," Mattox said.

"Medical professionals should not be coerced to violate the Hippocratic Oath in order to practice in Montana," he said.

If a "right to die" is to be recognized, it should be developed from the people through the legislative process, not imposed by a single judge, the brief also argues.

The district decision, the groups also point out,  would seriously undermine the relationship between doctors and patients. Patients could be uncomfortable knowing their doctor had provided a lethal dose to another patient, and doctors would have concerns about such demands from patients.

"At a time when states are experiencing a healthcare shortage, making Montana the only state in the union to coerce professionals to assist in suicides could jeopardize the state's healthcare system," Mattox said.

He told WND that the effort clearly is part of a nationwide agenda to impose and mandate ethical standards on Americans. Similar are the Obama administration's suggestions that that pharmacists may not have the right to refuse to dispense abortion-inducing medications, and doctors may not have a conscience right to refuse to do abortions, he said.

"I don't know where it's coming from, but there is certainly a push from government to tell people to set aside religious or ethical qualms and to abide by whatever the government tells you is appropriate," he said.

Mattox said the state still has several weeks to file its briefs in the Montana case, and then there will be further arguments on behalf of requiring doctors to provide terminal treatment.

"A mentally competent, terminally ill Montanan should have the right to choose a peaceful death, when confronted by death," Kathryn Tucker, Compassion & Choices director of legal affairs, told KTVQ-TV, Billings.

But Montana Assistant Attorney General Anthony Johnston disagrees.

Johnston told the television station, "The laws governing the medical profession say the medical profession is to heal, not to kill."
To be persuasive, we must be believable,
To be believable, we must be credible,
To be credible, we must be truthful.
- Edward R. Murrow