UPDATED to include reference to the involuntary passive euthenasia of innocent babies revealed by the Daily Mail.
A recent firestorm has erupted over a baby, in the care of the U.K.’s National Health Service, was left “to die like an abandoned animal.” The doctors and nurses repeated exclaimed that the child was fine and treated the child’s mother as a nuisance, with one doctor even ” ‘glared’ and ‘barked’ at her, giving her a look of ‘utter contempt’.”
Whether is was incompetence or sheer indifference, this case goes far beyond simple medical malpractice. Emergency treatments that were ordered took up to 22 hours to be implemented. The obvious need the child had for real medical care was obvious:
A passing member of the public, who had been visiting another child, went up to Mrs Stevenson and told her: ‘Your child cannot breathe.’ But at 11am, a cardiology registrar recorded Hayley as ‘stable’. Paula says: ‘We were very upset that a complete stranger could see that Hayley was in difficulty but the medical professionals merely said that she was fine.'”
The mother badgered and did everything she could to save her child even going so far as to ” bribe a nurse with £100 shopping voucher to get them to care for her daughter better.” Alas, the option of quality and affordable healthcare has been swept aside by the NHS, which ironically was meant to provide quality and affordable healthcare. Sadly, it is already the policy of the U.K.’s NHS to kill babies via involuntary passive euthanasia that involved removal of all care, food, and even water. That the doctors and nurses in this case were effectively doing the same against the express wished of the child’s mother is beyond disturbing.
Sadly, infants, as with the elderly, are more likely to be the targets for rationed healthcare, or healthcare denied, since “ethicists” consider them to have less worthy lives. In the case of infants, “ethicists” are outright saying that they should not be considered legal persons, and parents and doctors should be free to dispose of them as they wish, to the point of saying:
“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
The two “ethicists,” Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne, whose full monstrous journal article can be read here, are clearly blazing the path towards limiting the rationed healthcare to those more capable of providing for themselves, while taking it from those who can’t. Yet again, the irony of socialized medicine, which was purportedly meant to provide for the weakest amongst us who can’t provide for themselves, actually being used to restrict and deny healthcare to those who really need it, is as stark as it is sad.
UPDATED to include reference to the involuntary passive euthenasia of innocent babies revealed by the Daily Mail.
