Coming soon to Obama’s America…

Britain’s Socialist Health Care System Euthanizes 130,000 Elderly Patients Every Year

A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal recommends dehydrating dementia patients to death to save money.
Lifesite News reported:

The courts should not interfere with doctors who want to dehydrate to death incapacitated patients who are a drain on scarce financial resources, according to an editorial in this week’s edition of the prestigious British Medical Journal.

Raanan Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics and former chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics governing body, wrote that a ruling last year by the High Court against dehydrating an incapacitated patient to death was “profoundly disturbing” because it took the life and death decision-making power out of the hands of doctors and required that the principle of the “sanctity of life” take precedence over other considerations.

The judgment, he said, “threaten[s] to skew the delivery of severely resource-limited healthcare services towards providing non-beneficial or minimally beneficial life prolonging treatments including artificial nutrition and hydration to thousands of severely demented patients whose families and friends believe they would not have wanted such treatment”.

He complained that the ruling required that, under the “stringent” Mental Capacity Act, in order to remove “life prolonging treatment” like a feeding and hydration tube, the patient himself must have left a legally binding “advance decision” in writing, and that previous casual or unrecorded statements to relatives were not sufficient grounds.

The editorial, titled, “Sanctity of life law has gone too far,” said that unless it is overturned, the court ruling “will gradually and detrimentally distort healthcare provision, healthcare values, and common sense.”

Its logical implication, Gillon wrote, is that “doctors should no longer decide, in consultation with those who know their incapacitated patients, whether life prolonging treatment including artificial nutrition and hydration will be in their patients’ best interests.”

Isn’t socialized medicine grand?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2 3 4

`
  1. Jeebus. Just put a f**g bullet in their head and call it good. It’d be far more humane than this hideous obfuscation. Gawd almighty, save us.

  2. I think the headline on this may be misleading.

    I read it to mean that the courts are saying you have to try and save anyone who doesn’t have a legally written & witnessed document saying otherwise, and the doctors are saying that decision should be made by their doctor, in consultation with friends/family members who may have a better understanding of what the patient would want.

    The “dehydration” part is creepy in any case.

    Moral of the story: get yourself an ironclad Personal Directive and Living Will.

  3. ++

    hey, stop whining, let me be very clear, it’s “cost effective”.. /s/

    ==

  4. DAMN YOU!!!! Soylent Green is PEEEEPLE!!

    Remember when that was just a silly Sci-Fi movie?

  5. BG I love your posts and all the research you do, but that is not the point of THIS article at all. And believe me, I am not a fan of universal heath care.

    There are plenty of things to worry about in Obamacare, but this isn’t one of them. This just says there’s no reason to keep a “hopeless, end-stage” patient alive just because they didn’t sign a piece of paper saying they wouldn’t want to continue “living” in such a state.

    If it were me, I would want my family to step in and pull the plug.

  6. If they are all liberals who tend to be wastes of sperm anyway…No great loss. Let them reap what they sowed. The rest of us people who are not brain dead can determine what our lives will be like

  7. ++

    Terri Schiavo was a trial run..

    Attorney Who Aided Terri Schiavo’s
    Husband Now Advising Barack Obama

    and as i recall, there were more than ample people posting (not here at
    GP, not sure there was a GP back then) who were more than willing to
    let starve her to death back then.. :-(

    ==

  8. Hi. Just wondering when ‘letting nature take its course’ became evil. My father, who is 77, says it was right about the time when the government, rather families, began paying the bill. Is anyone going to say my Dad is wrong? Didn’t think so.

  9. ++

    #6 July 17, 2012 at 12:37 am I’m not a
    racist; I don’t like Biden or Pelosi either

    i know what you’re saying..

    however, listen to the “up the road” solution..

    the conclusion is it’s unavoidably clear which way the wind will blow,
    especially considering the undeniable fact that the ultimate goal is to
    depopulate planet Earth..

    ==

  10. I am 79 . Canadian and get very good affordable “Socialist” health care. If or rather when I get to the point that I am confined to a bed and cannot use a toilet and no possibility of recovery I would want to die as soon as possible without pain.

    I think this story is phony. Euthanising is injecting a drug to cause death within a minute like is done to end the life of a suffering pet. What the doctors do is to stop treatment that prolongs the suffering of patients who are dying. The cost of expensive equipment to prolong the dying process and staff to clean their bodies could be better spent on younger people.

  11. The idea that human life should be extended for terminally ill patients at any cost is foolishness. If someone has the resourses to prolong their life and choose to do so, it is their buisness. In America, if someone is on deaths door (in some cases even dead) the doctors and hospitals will go to outrageous lenghts to prolong life by even an hour at a finanicial cost that boggles the mind.. Get right with God.. Then you won’t have to fear death to the point of causing a hardship on society.. Your life in this world is only temporary.. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, God is going to take you when he chooses.. If however, someone has a reasonable chance of recovery money should be of no concern.. The treatment should occur.. If the patient is unable to pay,the hypocratic oath should apply.. Let the treated pay what they can afford on installment (if possible)..

  12. ++

    #6 July 17, 2012 at 12:37 am I’m not a
    racist; I don’t like Biden or Pelosi either

    btw, you obviously missed the /s/ = sarcasm = ;-)

    but none the less, at some point in the future (par the right under
    our noes in plain sight course) it is going to be “cost effective” at
    some point, i mean, isn’t that why they set up determining who
    gets what when where how or why panels
    in the first place??

    ==

  13. ++

    i am sorry, but dehydration is cruel and unusual
    punishment for being terminally ill or otherwise..

    they don’t treat dogs that way!!

    hence, i’m certain it will eventfully advance to giving
    them a shot, at least i would hope & pray so.. *sigh*

    ==

  14. As I said before, the best solution for your own benefit and to save your family the heartache of having to make the decision is to get a Personal Directive and leave copies with your family/friends. We’re all going to die, so there’s no excuse for putting it off and putting someone else in the position of making the decision. Even young people should have a PD.

  15. if they did it to save the patient suffering its one thing, if they do it to save money, then it is the dreaded death panels. But no doubt obama would pull the plug on the above patients but he would check its a republican, even camatose democrats can vote.

  16. Sarah Palin was right about death panels: The government will decide on life or death.
    .

  17. Dehydration is probably THE most excruciating way to die that there is.
    “A ‘Painless’ Death?”

  18. They already put people to death in hospitals in this country. They are just very good at hiding what’s they’re doing. My father (at age 59) broke his hip and went to the Hospital. He had heart problems, Diabetes, one leg, and needed dialysis. They put him on Dialysis there at the hospital but it wasn’t the same there….from the moment they hooked him up he was incoherent and couldn’t speak the entire time until he had a “heart attack” that killed him there at the hospital. I guess he had so many problems he wasn’t considered worth the treatment he would need for the rest of his life. Then they had a woman there who’s only job was to reassure people that “letting him go” was the best thing to do. I have heard similar stories of inneffective treatment at hospitals causing death that people thought were unusual and convinced to accept. Then after we wonder if they really had to die at that time. My mother also died of Breast cancer after extensive treatment and tens of thousand’s of dollars worth of chemo that prooved worthless. I have a hard time trusting doctors and hospitals now.



1 2 3 4


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Web Development By Arlington Kirk