Category Archives: euthanasia

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:
0
 

Don't waste your money: Hollyweird movie "Me Before You" isn't "romantic"

The Hollyweird movie, Me Before You, recently opened and is described as a “romantic drama” film. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by author Jojo Moyes, who is an English journalist and romance novelist.

Author Jojo Moyes

Author Jojo Moyes


According to Life News, the movie stars Emilia Clarke as Lou Clark, a woman who accepts a job as caregiver for young quadriplegic Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). Billed as a romantic comedy, the film shows the two falling in love and ends with Will choosing death before a life with Lou. While disability activists and most media reviewers slammed the plot, some critics (from AP to Vanity Fair) still praised and cried over the “romantic” film that they described as a “mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
You can read the whole movie plot (with spoilers) here at Life News.
mebeforeyou
Wikipedia describes the controversy surrounding this film: “The film has suffered a backlash from many people in the disabled community due to what they perceive as an underlying message that people with disabilities are a burden on their families and careers, and claim the film promotes the view that people are better off dead than disabled. They view the film as advocating suicide so that their loved ones can “live boldly”. The #MeBeforeEuthanasia backlash has been led by celebrities with disabilities; Liz Carr, Penny Pepper, and Cherylee Houston.
This hasn’t stopped the media from promoting this “romance” and human euthanasia story.

Life News notes the reactions of some in the media:
“As Vanity Fair critic Richard Lawson reviewed the “pleasant and sad little movie” containing “wit and style,” he argued that assisted suicide was the film’s greatest strength.”
“For Rolling Stone, movie critic Peter Travers wrote about the “four-hankie tearjerker.” While he accused the film of being a “sob story that will go down easy at the box office,” he argued that “you can’t blame audiences too much for being seduced by two shining young stars in a movie romance that hits the spot, bitter and sweet.”
“Even feminist site Bustle recommended bringing tissues to the theater. Writer Olivia Truffaut-Wong couldn’t gush enough over the film. “If you don’t leave Me Before You with red eyes and a sniffling nose, then either you hate crying in public, or you weren’t paying attention during the movie,” she began before arguing that “the movie is probably best described as a mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
Another Hollyweird movie I will not be seeing.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Medical facilities are killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food & water

It’s bad enough that euthanasia of the terminally-ill is now legal in states like Oregon and California, a hospital and a hospice are deliberately killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food and water, à la what they did to Terri Schiavo.
culture of death
The following is a June 6 email from Life Legal Defense Foundation:

Life Legal received two distressing phone calls on Sunday.
One was from the niece of an elderly woman who is in the hospital following an injury. The woman has slight dementia, but is able to communicate. The hospital decided it would no longer treat her, as care was “futile” because of the woman’s dementia. The woman’s niece tried to get a court order to keep her aunt alive, but the judge refused—and slandered the niece’s Catholic faith in the process. Yesterday, the hospital withdrew food and hydration from the woman.
Did you know that dementia is considered a terminal illness? And that food and hydration are considered “medical care” that can be withdrawn if a physician believes your condition won’t improve over time? In this case, the woman’s dementia is not severe—she still recognizes her niece and the hospital staff—yet because it will likely not get better, her doctors sentenced her to an agonizing death.
The second call was from the boyfriend of a 30-year-old woman who suffered a brain injury after she went into cardiac arrest. She is in a hospice facility that has not given her any nutrition for over a week. A few days ago, she started talking! She said that she is hungry and is asking for food. She is able to pull herself up and move her legs. She sings along to her favorite songs. Yet, the hospice refuses to feed her and is now giving her morphine because she tried to get out of bed.
We have calls out to local attorneys to help this young woman. Please pray that someone will be able to intervene tomorrow!

H/t California Catholic
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

TV star calls for children with Down’s syndrome to be put down

What a vile creature.

Talk about a pointless life...

Talk about a pointless life…


The Sun: A former  TV star has sparked outrage after posting a vile Facebook post claiming children with Down’s syndrome should be “put down”.
Ursula Presgrave, who appeared on BBC3 show The Call Centre last year, wrote: “Anyone born with down syndrome should be put down, it’s just cruel to let them lead a pointless life of a vegetable.”
The hateful status, posted on Sunday evening, received more than 1,000 comments from people calling her “vile” and “sick”.
One mum wrote: “My son has Down’s syndrome and is three but he is more of a person than you will ever be sweetheart. What goes around comes around and I hope your karma is terrible. Shame on you.”
presgrave2
Presgrave, from Swansea, has caused uproar on social media in the past after she posted a disgusting status about missing child Madeline McCann.
Instead of apologising for her cruel words, Presgrave responded by saying things like “attempting to give a f***” and posted pictures mocking children with Down’s syndrome.
Facebook has since removed the post.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Canadian doctors to get euthanasia kits

This December, Quebec will become the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow competent adults experiencing intolerable suffering at the end of life to request “medical aid in dying,” aka physician-assisted suicide, aka euthanasia.
Bill 52 allows doctors to administer lethal injections to mentally fit patients suffering an incurable illness who are in constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, in an advanced state of irreversible decline. and be at the end of life.
Hippocratic Oath
Sharon Kirkey reports for National Post, Aug. 28, 2015, that Quebec doctors will soon be given standardized kits with which to end the lives of patients seeking euthanasia, along with detailed instructions as the province prepares to usher in legalized aid in dying. The euthanasia patient-killing kit will include:

  • A sedative to calm the patient
  • A drug to induce a deep coma
  • A drug to induce cardiorespiratory arrest (two sets of each drug to provide a backup in case of complications)
  • Syringes
  • Needles in different calibre sizes
  • IV tubing
  • IV solutions

The Collège des médecins du Québec has developed a new guideline for doctors unlike any in the history of Canadian medicine: a step-by-step guide to follow before, during and after administering euthanasia to killing an eligible patient, including the type of drugs to be used, the dose, the injection site and what to do in the event of complications. The guideline, developed in collaboration with the Order of Pharmacists of Quebec and the Order of Nurses of Quebec, will be available to doctors, nurses and other health professionals on a secure area of the college’s website because, according to college secretary Dr. Yves Robert, “We don’t want these recipes made too easily available to everyone.”

Robert insists, “It is clearly not euthanasia on demand. It is clearly not that.”

In February, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the century-old Criminal Code prohibitions against “physician-assisted death.” In so doing, legal experts say the court opened the door to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide — where the doctor writes a prescription for a life-ending overdose the patient then takes himself.
Modeled on a 3-phased formula used in the Netherlands, the Quebec guideline could become a model for all of Canada. The three steps are:

  1. First, a benzodiazepine, a type of sedative, would be injected to help control anxiety and “help calm the patient,” Robert said.
  2. Next, a barbiturate drug would be injected to induce a coma.
  3. The third step would be a neuromuscular block, a derivative of curare that acts on the respiratory muscles to cause cardio-respiratory arrest, i. e., the person’s heart and lungs will cease functioning.

People requesting euthanasia can stop the processes at any time, up until the last moment before the loss of consciousness. The whole process, from beginning to death, “would probably take something around 15 minutes,” Robert said.
See also:

~Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Princeton ethicist: it's 'reasonable' to kill disabled newborn babies

newborn-baby-reuters
Campus Reform: Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.
Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies. Singer’s answer? It already has.
For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages. “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Peter Singer, bioethicist


Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”
This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”
messed up
Similarly, in his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Elsewhere in Practical Ethics, the bioethics professor claims that “[n]o infant—disabled or not—has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities.”
However, while Singer believes infants have little (if any) right to life, he has devoted much of his life to making the exact opposite argument with regard to chimpanzees and other non-human animals.
In 1975, Singer wrote his best-selling book Animal Liberation, which helped him earn a spot on TIME Magazine’s 2005 list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In Animal Liberation, Singer argued that “humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism.”
In 1993, Singer co-founded “The Great Ape Project,” which defines itself as “an international movement that aims to defend the rights of non-human great primates.” These rights, Singer explains in a 2006 article, include “life [and] liberty.” Singer bases his reasoning on “ the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which he says demands that humans give equal consideration to “non-human animals.” Those who “give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species,” Singer says, are “speciesists.”
While “non-human great primates” have a “right” to life, that same right—according to Singer—does not extend to human infants. In a 2012 op-ed defending abortion, Singer claimed that “membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”
Singer takes the argument one step further in “Taking Life: Humans” by arguing that if killing a “haemophiliac infant” meant that the infant’s parents could have another child in his place, it would “be right to kill him.”
Most people, Singer argued, would say “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
However, not all members of the Princeton community share Singer’s views towards infanticide. “Peter Singer’s views demonstrate the logical extreme to which a view of personhood based on some developed capability or trait must carry us,” Princeton junior Christine Smith told Campus Reform.
“When personhood is no longer defined by our innate humanity or our intrinsic value, then we necessarily approach a view that embraces the killing of seriously disabled, or even merely unwanted, infants,” she said. While Peter Singer’s views are obviously idiosyncratic, it is important to take them seriously because they reveal the inherent problem of trying to define certain categories of humans as more valuable or more protected than others.”
“[W]e are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants,” Singer declared on Sunday. “And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Making The Affordable Care Act more Affordable: Obama architect says we shouldn't live beyond 75

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel

WND EXCLUSIVE

‘DIE AT 75’ ADVOCATE’S POLITICAL MOTIVES HIDDEN

No mention of his interest as chief architect of Obamacare

author-imageby JEROME R. CORSI
NEW YORK – Missing in The Atlantic magazine’s recent presentation of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s column declaring his desire to die at age 75 is the fact that he is a chief architect of Obamacare, with a vested interest in curbing life expectancy in a system of limited resources that forces moral decisions concerning who will receive health care and who will not…


Sound of screeching brakes!!!!
In case you didn’t connect the dots, this doctor (Rahm Emanuel’s brother) is an author of ObamaCare and wants us to DIE AT 75!!!!!!!!

This article is filled with references to the abuse Sarah Palin received for warning us about Death Panels. It demonstrates the DoubleSpeak of the Obama administration, and its reliance on euphemistic names to cover up its true intentions. 
But for me, one of the most chilling parts of the article is the happy-gram Dr. Emanuel used to illustrate his reason for ridding society of those who have exhausted their usefulness. Take a look, and see what I mean. 


…Emanuel paints a dismal picture of the elderly, writing: “Even if we aren’t demented, our mental functioning deteriorates as we grow older. Age-associated declines in mental-processing speed, working and long-term memory, and problem-solving are well established. Conversely, distractibility increases. We cannot focus and stay with a project as well as we could when we were young. As we move slower with age, we also think slower.”
By age 75, Emanuel figures that “creativity, originality, and productivity are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us.”
He produced the following chart to make his point:
productivity
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/die-at-75-advocates-political-motives-hidden/#mYZJy7xxYwPtxIlM.99


So listen up, all you older types. The president and his “men” want you to do the right thing, and die at 75. And whatever you do, DON’T VOTE.
~ TD

Please follow and like us:
0