Category Archives: euthanasia

How Americans view 21 moral issues

From May 1-12, 2019, Gallup conducted its annual Values and Beliefs poll, using telephone interviews of a random national sample of 1,009 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Landline and cellular telephone numbers were selected using random-digit-dial methods. The poll has a margin of ±4 percentage points sampling error; the poll’s findings have a 95% confidence level.

Gallup’s summary of the poll:

There has been little movement since last year in Americans’ views of the moral acceptability of a range of issues, as birth control, drinking alcohol and divorce remain the most acceptable, and cloning humans and extramarital affairs are least acceptable.

A strong ideological split remains across many of the issues, but none is as divisive as abortion. As some states move to limit or restrict abortions, debate around this issue will likely only get more intense.

Political Divide:

  • Of the 21 issues tested in this poll, 7 issues are deemed acceptable by a majority of liberals but less than half of conservatives: abortion, gay or lesbian relations, doctor-assisted suicide, smoking marijuana, having a baby outside of marriage, pornography, and sex between teenagers.
  • Abortion is the most divisive of the issues: 23% of conservatives vs. 73% of liberals consider it morally acceptable.
  • Just 3 issues are viewed as morally acceptable by a majority of conservatives but less than half of liberals: the death penalty, buying and wearing clothes made of animal fur, and medical testing on animals.
  • Conservatives and liberals are broadly united in their belief that 5 behaviors are morally wrong: suicide, cloning animals, cloning humans, polygamy, and extramarital affairs.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Updated: Netherlands teen raped as a child is legally euthanized due to her unbearable pain

Noa Pothoven Facebook photo

Politico reports that the euthanasia story wasn’t true:

“The teenager died at the weekend, several days after she began to refuse all fluids and foods. Her parents and doctors agreed not to force feed her or compel her into treatment against her will.”

According to Charles Lane (opinion writer) from the Washington Post:

Noa had to wait half a year for a treatment place in an eating disorder clinic in Zutphen, which meant she eventually had to undergo tube feeding for a year at Rijnstate Hospital. If accurate, we have a case of systemic failure being “resolved” by mercy-killing.

Child’s mother in Dutch press: “There are also huge waiting lists there. We actually want one place for her, where she can stay and where all her physical and mental problems are addressed. You can’t find it in the Netherlands. ” Untreatable illness?”

From NY Post: A 17-year-old Dutch girl was legally allowed to kill herself using euthanasia after she was raped when younger and spent years battling depression, according to a report Tuesday.

“Love is letting go, in this case,” Noa Pothoven of Arnhem wrote in an Instagram post announcing her choice to die in the living room of her home Sunday.

Pothoven — who was sexually abused at 11 and raped three years later — said she was sick of suffering unbearable pain. “Maybe this comes as a surprise to some, given my posts about hospitalization, but my plan has been there for a long time and is not impulsive,” she wrote.

“I will get straight to the point: within a maximum of 10 days I will die,” she added. “After years of battling and fighting, I am drained. I have quit eating and drinking for a while now, and after many discussions and evaluations, it was decided to let me go because my suffering is unbearable. I breathe, but I no longer live.”

In The Netherlands, kids ages 12 to 16 need permission from a parent to be euthanized and must have consulted a doctor, who agrees that their suffering is unbearable and likely to continue.

But at 17, children no longer need their parents’ consent to apply to kill themselves. Pothoven turned 17 in December.

The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2001 — the year she was born.

There are no reports of her parents legally challenging her choice at age 17, although a year earlier, they refused to give her permission because they thought she should complete trauma treatment and that her brain should be fully grown before a definitive decision.

Pothoven, who asked friends not to try to change her mind, wrote before she died that she suffered from post-traumatic stress and anorexia in the wake of the sex attacks, according to the UK Sun.

Last year, she was admitted to the Rijnstate hospital in Arnhem seriously underweight and with near organ failure. She was put in a coma and fed via tubes.

In her 2018 autobiography “Winning or Learning,” Pothoven said she was sexually assaulted at a friend’s party at age 11, then again a year later at another get-together, before being raped by two men on the street at age 14. She has said she wrote her book to help other young people.

She said she didn’t tell anyone about the sex attacks on her when they happened out of shame and fear. “I relive the fear, that pain every day. Always scared, always on my guard. And to this day my body still feels dirty,” Pothoven wrote in her book.

Pothoven said she tried hospitalization and visits with specialists to no avail before eventually contacting the Life End Clinic in The Hague about a year and a half ago, around age 16 — without her family’s knowledge, the outlet reported.

Her parents had no idea she was tortured mentally until her mom found a plastic envelope in her room around the same time filled with farewell letters to them and friends, according to the Dutch newspaper De Gelderlander. “I was in shock,” her mom, Lisette, told the paper. ‘We didn’t get it. Noa is sweet, beautiful, smart, social and always cheerful. How is it possible that she wants to die?

“We have never received a real answer. We just heard that her life was no longer meaningful. For only a year and a half have we known what secret she has carried with her over the years,” she said. “We, her parents, want[ed] her to choose the path of life.”

Her dad, Frans, said the teen underwent electroshock therapy. He hoped she’d “see bright spots [in life] again, ‘perhaps fall in love’ or learn to discover that ‘life is worth living.”

More than 6,500 people ended their lives using euthanasia in the Netherlands in 2017, according to past reports. Belgium also allows people to get doctor assisted suicide for psychological reasons.

Euthanasia must be performed under the standards of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act.

See also:

Hollyweird libtard Ricky Gervais promoting assisted suicide for his Netflix series: “I would take a euthanasia tablet”

UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years

Canadian doctors to get euthanasia kits

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Human Composting?!!!

WND‘SOYLENT GREEN’? STATE POISED TO LEGALIZE HUMAN COMPOSTING

‘I believe in doing things as naturally as possible’

Now, Washington is poised to be the first American state to test public reaction to turning human beings into compost that could provide nutrients for various food products.

With bipartisan majorities, the state Senate and House of Representatives on Friday approve bill 5001, titled “concerning human remains,” the Seattle Times reported.

The law would take effect May 1 if it is signed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Wes McMahan, a retired cardiovascular intensive-care nurse, testified in favor of the bill, saying he is “very much in favor of the composting of human bodies…

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/soylent-green-state-poised-to-legalize-human-composting/#TDUy5SLEdVfUR3BB.99


Call me suspicious, but whenever I see politicians moralizing about being good to the earth, I reach for my wallet. 

Think of all the solar energy boondoggles we’ve seen. They rarely do what was promised, but always edge us closer to government control. And who profits? Politicians usually. So land grabs have a new profitability.

Now make our human bodies a profitable commodity, and that governed by “public servants,” and we have a financial motivation for harvesting humans, making them available a little earlier than they wanted.

It’s nothing new. Note the Wall Street Journal article,
The Nightmare of Human Organ Harvesting in China.

Think it can’t happen in America?
Just a little “FOOD” for thought.

How Bill 5001 began: “Urban Death Project proposes to use corpses as compost. Is Soylent Green far away?,” March 20, 2015.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ghoulish Oregon law allows doctors to starve & dehydrate mentally-incapacitated patients to death

A law in Oregon legally allows medical practitioners to starve and dehydrate to death patients with dementia, Alzheimer’s or another mental illness who are deemed mentally incompetent.

The law began as Senate Bill 494, with a vague, uninformative title: “Relating to health care decisions; prescribing an effective date.” The summary of the bill is a bit more informative, but still obscure: “Establishes Advance Directive Adoption Committee for purpose of adopting form of advance directive to be used in this state.

But Steven Ertelt of LifeSiteNews rightly warns that SB 494, touted as a “simple update” to Oregon’s current advance directive, actually is designed to allow for the starving and dehydrating to death of patients with dementia or mental illness by removing current safeguards in Oregon’s advance directive statute that preserve Oregonians’ ability to receive food and hydration even if they lose mental competency.

SB 494 targets people who become mentally incapable of making health care decisions, such as someone with dementia, but who can still eat, drink and make other everyday choices.

How SB 494 works:

  • Oregon had an advance directive that allowed a person to specify types of care they will want, including instructions for end-of-life-care such as tube feeding, as well as who will be their health care representative if they become mentally incompetent.
  • Under the advance directive law, if it’s not clear what a mentally incompetent person desires or wants, the person’s health care representative did not have the authority to end the incompetent person’s life unless the person is in a specific end-of-life situation.
  • SB 494, however, removes the advance directive document from Oregon statute. The result is that an incompetent person’s life may be ended according to the wishes of their health care representative, even if it’s against the unwritten or ambiguously written desires of the incompetent person.

Gayle Atteberry, former executive director of Oregon Right to Life, said SB 494 is  pushed by big medical insurance companies:

This bill, written in a deceiving manner, has as its goal to save money at the expense of starving and dehydrating dementia and mentally ill patients to death. Oregon law currently has strong safeguards to protect patients who are no longer able to make decisions for themselves. Nursing homes and other organizations dedicated to protecting vulnerable patients work hard to make sure patients receive the food and water they need.  Senate Bill 494, pushed hard by the insurance lobby, would take patient care a step backwards and decimate patient rights. Oregon Right to Life is committed to fighting this terrible legislation every step of the way. We have already seen the outrage of countless Oregonians that the Legislature would consider putting them in danger.  We expect the grassroots response to only increase.”

On February 16, 2018, the Oregon State House passed HB 4135 — the House version of SB 474 — by 35 (D) vs. 25 (R).

On February 27, 2018, the Oregon State Senate passed SB 474 by a 17 (D) vs. 12 (R) vote. Every Democrat, except Sen. Betsy Johnson, voted “yes”. Every Republican except Sen. Jeff Kruse, voted “no”.

On March 16, 2018, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, a Democrat and known supporter of abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List, signed the euthanasia bill into law, effective June 2, 2018.

Oregonians will now need to specifically opt into an advance directive to ensure that their health care representative does not end their life.

A similar bill, HB 5898, is now being considered by the Connecticut state legislature. (LifeNews)

H/t Lola (aka Yahoo) and Kelleigh

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Improper legal killing? Belgium launches first criminal investigation of euthanasia case

Try and process this statement: “Among Belgians euthanised for mental health reasons, the most common conditions are depression, personality disorder and Asperger’s.”

From The Guardian: Belgian officials are investigating whether doctors improperly euthanised a woman with autism, the first criminal investigation in a euthanasia case since the practice was legalised in 2002.

Three doctors from East Flanders are being investigated on suspicion of having “poisoned” Tine Nys in 2010. The 38-year-old had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, a form of autism, two months before she died in an apparently legal killing by a doctor.

Belgium is one of two countries, along with the Netherlands, where euthanasia of people for psychiatric reasons is allowed if they can prove they have “unbearable and untreatable” suffering.

Among Belgians euthanised for mental health reasons, the most common conditions are depression, personality disorder and Asperger’s. Many experts – in Belgium and beyond– dispute whether autism should be considered a valid reason to be killed.

Last year, the Associated Press reported that after Nys’ family filed a criminal complaint, alleging numerous “irregularities” in her death, her doctors attempted to block the investigation.

“We must try to stop these people,” wrote Dr. Lieve Thienpont, the psychiatrist who approved Nys’ request to die – and one of the doctors now facing charges. “It is a seriously dysfunctional, wounded, traumatised family with very little empathy and respect for others,” the message read.

Sophie Nys, one of Tine’s sisters, told the AP that the doctor who performed the euthanasia asked her parents to hold the needle in place while he administered the fatal injection, among other fumbling efforts. Afterwards, the doctor asked the family to use a stethoscope to confirm that Tine’s heart had stopped.

Belgium’s chamber of indictment “presumes that there are sufficient indications in this particular case” and the doctors involved have been referred to the court of assize in Ghent. They will now face trial “due to poisoning”, said Francis Clarysse, a Ghent prosecutor.

Concerns have previously been raised about whether Thienpont, Nys’ psychiatrist, too easily approved euthanasia requests from patients with mental illness.

The AP previously published documents revealing a rift between Thienpont and Dr. Wim Distelmans, who heads Belgium’s euthanasia review commission. Distelmans voiced fears that Thienpont and colleagues may have failed to meet certain legal requirements in some euthanasia cases – and wrote that he would no longer accept referred patients from Thienpont.

In the 15 years since doctors were granted the right to legally kill patients, more than 10,000 people have been euthanised. Only one case has previously been referred to prosecutors; that case was later dropped.

See also:

h/t Red State

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

We were warned about the slippery slope of legalizing abortion.

Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing euthanasia, euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide”.

The latest in the slippery slope is a call for infanticide.

In an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics, two philosophers propose that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn, which the two philosophers call “after-birth abortion”. The two authors are:

  • Alberto Giubilini, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, and is now a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, England.
  • Francesca Minerva, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Australia, and is now a post-doc research fellow at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Here is the article’s Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The authors begin their article by arguing that “the same conditions that would have justified abortion,” such as Down’s syndrome and other severe mental and/or physical impairments, should also be “applied to killing a newborn human” because “children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

But the authors then go further, arguing that even if severely disabled children are happy, they should be “aborted” after birth because of the problems they create for the mothers and for society:

[H]aving a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself….

[T]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Playing word games, the authors say they eschew calling “after-birth abortion” either “infanticide” or “euthanasia” because “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child,” and because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

In short, the authors justify “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that the newborn infant is just like the unborn fetus in that “neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense” because neither has “the potentiality to become a person” in the sense of forming any future aims.

By “person” the authors mean “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

By that definition, “many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons,” but newborns and fetuses are not persons because they “are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence”. At best, newborns and fetuses are only “potential persons”, which means that the interests of “actual people” (parents, family, society), no matter how weak their interests, always “over-ride” the interest of “merely potential people”. The latter “cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” because the interest of non-persons “amounts to zero”.

Giublini and Minerva even argue against adoption of unwanted newborns if the mothers could be “damaged” by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The authors do allow that since newborns and fetuses are “only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure,” they “have a right not to be inflicted pain.”

How humane and generous of Giubilini and Minerva. /Sarc

As to how old a newborn would be when killing him/her is no longer “permissible”, Giublini and Minerva refuse to specify. Instead, they leave the cut-off threshold open-ended. In their words:

[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

You can read their short article here.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

Savulescu defended Giubilini and Minerva on the grounds that their arguments are not new and in the interest of academic freedom. He said:

“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands…. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

See also “Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled”.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

UN: abortion & euthanasia should be universal human rights; one world government in 12 years

Inés San Martin reports for Crux, Nov. 15, 2018, that the United Nations Human Rights Committee wants to make abortion and “assisted suicide” — a euphemism for euthanasia — a univeral human right.

A “General Comment” is a UN agency’s interpretation of the provisions of the treaties to which it is a party.

According to a draft “General Comment” of the UN Human Rights Committee’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN member governments:

  • Must decriminalize abortion for women and abortionists.
  • Must guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, or when carrying the pregnancy to term could cause her “pain or suffering” as in the cases of rape or incest.
  • Must remove barriers that deny access to a safe abortion, “including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.” In other words, medical providers must be forced to perform abortion, regardless of their religious or moral objection.
  • Guarantee girls’ and women’s access to post-abortion health care “in all circumstances, and on a confidential basis.”
  • Guarantee access by “boys and girls” to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods.
  • Allow medical professionals to “facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”

An earlier version of the draft was read in July 2017, during the 120th session of the Human Rights Committee and made available online by the UN. “All interested stakeholders” were invited to comment on the draft. Although many pro-life groups submitted comments, their views are disregarded as the current version of the draft, as of October 31, shows that the language calling for governments to guarantee access to abortion and “assisted suicide” remains.

Meanwhhile, writing for American Thinker, Oct. 27, 2018, E. Jeffrey Ludwig reminds us that in 2015, the UN issued a program for world government, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The 14,883-words document has 91 numbered sections addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership; and contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

The earlier UN ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are now subsumed under “sustainability”. The UN World Commission on Environment and Development defines “sustainable development” as:

  • Development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” — whatever that means.
  • “Environmentalism” — preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.
  • The Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Ludwig warns:

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN….

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945. Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Patients in UK can be starved to death without their consent or a court hearing

Wed, 01 Aug 2018 20:01:43 +0000

eowyn2

Ben Morgan reports for the Evening Standard that on July 30, 2018, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that in cases where families and doctors are in agreement, medical staff can remove feeding tubes from patients in a permanent vegetative state, without the patient’s consent and without consulting a judge.

UK’s  highest court made that ruling by upholding a decision that a financial analyst, 52, with an extensive brain injury (PDOC: prolonged disorder of consciousness), who is identified only as Mr. Y, should be allowed to die without his family going before a judge. The man had a cardiac arrest as a result of coronary artery disease.

PDOC covers patients in a coma, vegetative state and minimally conscious state after a brain injury.

Experts agreed it was highly improbable that Mr Y would re-emerge into consciousness and – even if he did – he would have profound cognitive and physical disability and always be dependent on others.

Mr Y had not drawn up any advance decision to refuse treatment but his family were firmly of the view that he would not want to be kept alive given the poor prognosis. His family and medical team agreed it would be in his best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to be withdrawn, with the result that he would die within two to three weeks.

Richard Gordon QC, for the Official Solicitor, said: “This case is not about whether it is in the best interests of a patient to have CANH withdrawn. It is about who decides that question.”

Supreme Court judge Lady Black said: “Having looked at the issue in its wider context as well as from a narrower legal perspective, I do not consider that it has been established that the common law or the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), in combination or separately, give rise to the mandatory requirement…to involve the court to decide upon the best interests of every patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness before CANH can be withdrawn.”

The court’s ruling can have an impact on thousands of UK families whose loved ones are in a vegetative state.

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Oregon legislature approves bill to allow starving the mentally ill to death

Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:01:10 +0000

eowyn2

The state of Oregon has gone down the proverbial slippery slope, from legalizing assisted suicide to active euthanasia of people without their consent.

On Feb. 27, 2018, Oregon’s state Senate passed House Bill 4135 — a bill that paves the way for healthcare representatives to remove access to food and water for Oregonians with dementia and Alzheimer’s who are not dying, effectively starving them to death.

On February 16, Oregon’s House passed HB 4135, in a party line 35(D) vs. 25 (R) vote.

The chief sponsors of the bill are all Democrats — the openly lesbian House Speaker Rep. Tina Kotek (D) and Senators Floyd Kozanski (D) and Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D).

Oregon Right to Life explains:

HB 4135 is purported to just be a bill that makes technical changes to the current statutory advance directive form found in ORS 127.531. However, over the last 25 years, Oregonians at the end-of-life stage have been protected by the current advance directive. Removing it from statute has legal consequences.

If HB 4135 is passed a person who appoints a healthcare representative, but makes no decisions regarding end of life care, would be granting his or her healthcare representative the power to make a life ending decision for the principal. They would have the power to remove access to food and water, even when the principal is not in one of the four statutorily defined end of life situations, and even if this is not the will of the principal.

Indeed, a supporter of HB 4135, Bill Harris, had gone to court in order to starve his wife who has dementia. He testified that he supports HB 4135 because he was unable to starve his wife under current law.

Oregon state Rep. Bill Kennemer (R) said:

“The advance directive was put into Oregon statute back in 1993. I was then a state senator when a very well vetted bill was thoroughly discussed and passed. I worked hard to ensure the advance directive was in statute. If it were to be removed from statute, I fear the legal protections we carefully placed there could be jeopardized, potentially harming end of life decisions for vulnerable patients.”

The bill now goes to, Kate Brown (D), Oregon’s openly bisexual governor who is not pro-life. To ask Governor Brown to veto the bill, please click here.

Still think there’s no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties?

H/t LifeNews

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It's okay to rape the mentally disabled

Do you know someone who’s mentally disabled?
If so, you should know that celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer says it’s okay for them to be raped.

Peter Singer


Peter Singer, 70, is an Australian moral philosopher who is widely celebrated and recognized with:

  • The Order of Australia from the Australian government “for achievement or meritorious service”.
  • An endowed Ira W. DeCamp professorship at Princeton University.
  • A Laureate professorship at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

Singer specializes in applied ethics from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He calls his brand of ethics hedonistic utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the Bentham principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number”. Hedonistic utilitarianism is the belief that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, as defined in terms of the happiness and well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals. Hedonistic utilitarianism considers all interests — those of humans and nonhuman animals — equally.
Singer’s hedonistic utilitarianism led him to espouse:

  • Reduction of world poverty via citizens of rich nations giving some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor.
  • Reduction of animal suffering via animal liberation and veganism.
  • Women’s absolute right to abort on the grounds that fetuses are not persons: they are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences.
  • Voluntary and some cases of involuntary (infanticide) euthanasia.
  • Bestiality that does not “harm” the animal and is “mutually satisfying”.
  • Infanticide of disabled newborn babies because “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” See DCG’s post here.

Singer’s latest contribution to ethics is in a New York Times op/ed he co-authored with Oxford moral philosopher Jeff McMahan, in defense of Anna Stubblefield, 45, a former professor of ethics at Rutgers University, recently convicted of sexually assaulting D.J., a 34-year-old black man with severe cerebral palsy who is non-verbal, wears a diaper, and requires assistance with common everyday tasks like bathing, eating and walking.

Although D.J. is incapable of communication, Stubblefield maintains that her use of a controversial method called “facilitated communication” enabled D.J. to express himself to her.

Note: “Facilitated communication” is a discredited technique whereby a facilitator helps a mentally disabled person to “communicate” by moving (or simply pulling) the disabled’s hand across a board showing the alphabet.

Stubblefield spent the next two years working with D.J. on his communication skills, during which time she claimed he was able to write essays and academic papers, including one which was presented at the 2010 Society for Disabilities Studies conference. She came to “love” D.J. and to believe that he loved her and wanted to have sex with her. (Daily Mail)
In May 2011, D.J. revealed his sexual relationship with Stubblefield to his brother and mother, who are his legal guardians. The family went to the police and sued Stubblefield.
In October 2015, a New Jersey jury convicted Anna Stubblefield on two counts of aggravated sexual assault on D.J., and sentenced her to 12 years in prison. The prosecution claimed that Stubblefield had exploited and raped D.J. because he is sufficiently intellectually disabled to be incapable of consenting to sex. The conviction is being appealed.
In their NYT op/ed, Singer and McMahan accuse the trial’s female judge of having prevented the defense from making a case that D.J. was a cognitively aware adult who is mentally and morally capable of consenting to sex. Singer and McMahan then argue that even if the prosecution is right and D.J. is mentally incapacitated, Stubblefield had done him no real harm in having sexual intercourse with him because D.J. is incapable of undertanding what she did. Furthermore, Stubblefield actually did D.J. “good” because he “experienced pleasure” from the sexual intercourse. The two ethicists write:

“If we assume that he is profoundly cognitively impaired … in that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed, he may lack the concept of consent altogether.
On the assumption that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, therefore, it seems that if Stubblefield wronged or harmed him, it must have been in a way that he is incapable of understanding and that affected his experience only pleasurably.”

As reported by Steve Weatherbe for LifeSiteNews, April 7, 2017, writing in Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson calls the ethicists’ argument one of Singer’s “most outrageous arguments yet” and that it’s Singer’s stance on the disabled that “has led some disabled people to get the not unreasonable impression that Peter Singer, perhaps the world’s most prominent ethicist, would prefer it if they died . . . . The continued presence of Peter Singer in national dialogue about disability shows just how far we have to go before people like D.J. will actually be granted their full humanity, by prosecutors and philosophers alike.”
Robinson condemns utilitarianism in general for being “meticulous and Spock-like in their deductions from premises,” which leads them to “constantly end up endorsing the moral necessity of an endless number of inhumane acts. It’s a terrible philosophy that leads to brutal and perverse conclusions and, at its worst, it turns you into Peter Singer.”
The German Nazis, too, had their brand of hedonistic utilitarianism which justified their extermination of whole groups of people, including homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, and Jews — whom the Nazis called the bacillus race, responsible for humankind’s moral filth and degeneracy.
From “The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield,” New York Times Magazine, October 20, 2015:

“Marjorie Anna Stubblefield goes by her middle name, pronounced with an aristocratic a, as in the word ‘‘nirvana.’’ Her last name is her former husband’s. Years ago, she was Margie McClennen, an honors student who grew up Jewish in the nearly all-white town of Plymouth, Mich.”

Peter Singer, too, is Jewish. His parents were Austrian Jews who immigrated from Vienna to Australia, where he was born. Singer’s grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the German Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.
But the irony of what Stubblefield did to D.J. and the similarities of Singer’s brand of ethics with Nazism evidently is lost on the esteemed ethicist.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0