Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Shut up, the homicidal physician explained!
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
The Netherlands has decided to include children under 12 on their kill list.
“For or the first time since a change in the law in the Netherlands, a child under the age of 12 has died by euthanasia.
“The death of the child was confirmed by the country’s health minister, Sophie Hermans, as she presented the annual report by the committee that reviews all late-term abortions and medically-assisted deaths of children to parliament on Monday.
“According to the report, the child was under the age of 12 and had been seriously ill, but no further details were given.
“Assisted dying for terminally sick children aged from one to 12 has been legal for two years in the Netherlands.”
This isn’t the first case of killing kids under 12 since infanticide has been legal for a while there.
“[D]octors commit legal infanticide when babies are born with terminal illnesses or serious disabilities. This is allowed under the ‘Groningen Protocol,’ a bureaucratic checklist to determine which babies are killable.
“After the Holocaust, infanticide was considered such an egregious human rights atrocity that some German doctors were hanged for having killed disabled babies. Their excuse? Killing these babies was compassionate and for the benefit of the babies as well as their parents and the Reich. …
“That defense didn’t fly. But it might these days, as Dutch doctors do the same thing and it is depicted benignly as ‘death with dignity.’”
In the U.K., physicians will go to court to kill kids despite the parents trying to save them.
“Readers may recall the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases in the U.K., in which National Health Service hospitals took the parents of terminally ill children to court after they refused to acquiesce in doctors’ recommendations that life support be ended.
“In both cases, the court ruled in the hospital’s favor in determining both that life support could be ended and preventing the parents from transferring care of their children to medical facilities willing to provide last-ditch treatments that the families wanted.
“Now, a Trust hospital hasn’t even bothered going to court. Instead, doctors have unilaterally withdrawn kidney dialysis over family objections from Robert Barnor, who was profoundly disabled by a stroke, stating that letting the man die is merely a “clinical” decision. From the Telegraph story:
“‘The 68-year-old suffered extensive brain damage and can now only open his eyes and move his head. He requires twice-weekly dialysis treatment for kidney disease, without which he would be expected to die within days.
“‘On Wednesday, the hospital told his family it had made a “clinical decision” to end Mr Barnor’s dialysis and provide palliative care until he dies.’
“But that isn’t a ‘clinical decision.’ It is a value judgment that the quality of Barnor’s life is not worth living or perhaps, that it isn’t worth the cost of care.”
In France, even an adult can’t stop his or her own killing!
“Just days after France legalized ‘assisted suicide,’ the French government has now ruled that doctors can euthanize a conscious patient against his wishes by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, even though he repeatedly says he wants to live.
“The bombshell ruling has intensified fears that France’s euthanasia regime is already sliding toward a system in which doctors, not patients, ultimately decide who lives and who dies.
“At the center of the case is Rémi, a man who regained consciousness after a devastating accident and now consistently tells doctors and his family that he wants to continue living after getting a second chance at life.”
“Despite his repeated requests, physicians at Paris’s taxpayer-funded Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital have sought to end the treatment keeping him alive, arguing it constitutes ‘unreasonable obstinacy.’
“France’s Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, has now sided with the doctors.”
“In one of the ruling’s most alarming declarations, the court stated that ‘the patient’s wishes are subject to the law.’”
TTFN.
