I've blogged elsewhere about Canada's new push to kill off people that are a burden to society. Their new act regarding Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) aims to widen the types of conditions that can legally be covered by MAID.
Now Canada aims to add mental illness and physical disability, which I assume includes depression to the ACT.
Already we've had tales of patients going to Canadian doctors with relatively minor issues and then incredulously being asked if they wanted to end it all.
Paralympian Christine Gauthier has testified that she was given the option of assisted suicide when she asked for a stairlift.
Elsewhere, in the Netherlands a girl was allowed assisted suicide because she had severe depression.
This is what happens when assisted suicide is allowed. Yes, the heart-strings are tugged when it's initially debated: the most terminally ill and desperate individuals are put up front to argue the point that if they are in constant great pain, or have no quality of life, they should be allowed to die under their terms.
To an extent, I agree with their plight. BUT (and it's a big but), once assisted suicide is established in law, it NEVER stops at the worst cases. There is ALWAYS mission creep. So, it evolves over time: if they are in pain, or have no quality of life, why can't I be allowed to die with my debilitating depression or mental illness?
Once the gates are open to essentially anyone to just top themselves with the help of state-supplied poisons, it then evolves into "wouldn't you like to stop being a burden to your relatives? To then wouldn't you like to stop being a burden to the state? To then eventually "Look I'm sorry, but the state has requested your "suicide", you have no choice in the matter as you have been deemed a net drain on state resources".
And that's the Rabbit hole Canada is half way down at the moment. Other countries that have legislated assisted suicide are at the top of the rabbit hole and have found the slope quite slippery.
In the UK, we don't have assisted suicide laws, but I've already blogged about the borderline illegal issuance of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) forms during the pandemic for those deemed unworthy of treatment.
A UK Paralympian, Helen Raynesford was asked to sign a DNR form at a medical appointment. And she's just in a wheelchair with no life-limiting condition.
Normally the medical profession do it with more subtlety and don't outwardly ask you to sign the DNR, your GP just gets a memo to do it for people that fit certain criteria behind their backs.
Or we just don't provide basic healthcare, like Ambulances to pick up people with life-limiting conditions for 16 hours, so they die before they have a chance of getting to hospital for treatment.
Now it's tinfoil hat time. This push to kill off the old, the infirm the mentally ill and the physically disabled is not a national or local phenomenon. It is global. Countries around the world have skirted round the issue, poking and prodding at it until the time is right to implement assisted suicide laws. And there is a push from outside politics to install such laws. Luckily, the majority of civilised countries have rejected the move to assisted suicide being on the books.
And yes, I class any country that allows people to top themselves for no reason at all as uncivilised. Any civilised country would provide an environment for such people that would enhance and enrich their life and provide support. It certainly wouldn't just say "well, why don't you top yourself then?".
So why exactly is this a worldwide push? Well, it's that old Malthusian tune again. The one that started off with Mathus, then erupted violently it the thirties with eugenics (the pinnacle of which was the Nazis) and now we have the "environmental" lobby. It's all about population control.
Or to put it more succinctly, reduction of parts of the population you don't belong to. For instance, extinction rebellion are not just advocating we stop using oil. Because if we did do that, then overnight people would die because of those policies. Of course, the extinction rebellion people have no qualms about killing a few people off because they aren't in the group that would be culled. They are predominantly middle-class youngsters, the Tamaras and the Tarquins.
They think they wouldn't be in the culling list, so they cheer on the policies that would result in the demise of the poor. Just like the Germans did in the Thirties and the Forties when they cheered on the persecution of the Jews and didn't lift a finger as they were led off to the gas chambers.
Extinction rebellion are the same sort of thinkers: they believe themselves above others. They certainly think themselves above the law and continue to do criminal damage and cause obstruction and seem surprised and indignant when the law does actually deal with them. Those poor people, those consumers of energy, those untermensch, are they really worth saving?
When World War Two was over and the excesses of the Nazi's eugenical polices was laid bare for all to see, we had Nuremburg. The trials quite rightly dealt with the worst perpetrators in the only way the world was prepared to countenance. They were hanged for their crimes against humanity.
We also had medical policies that came out of the same period, with the same name. The Nuremburg code of 1947. It's increasingly clear that certain Pharmaceutical companies did not follow the code recently.
The essence of the Nuremburg code is informed consent and rejection of unethical practices. But how are people supposed to exercise informed consent if the Pharma companies lie about their drugs? Just how dangerous is it to take an experimental drug created in emergency conditions?
Certainly with the so-called "Vaccines" of the past couple of years, there has been very little information upon which to inform consent.
Are the Vaccine makers in violation of the Nuremburg code? I tend to think so. Governments and companies that mandated the "vaccine" only followed the information provided by the Pharma companies. That the "vaccine" was safe, that it prevented spread of the virus and that it did less harm to those that took it than getting the actual virus itself.
We now know that was a lie. The "vaccine" had not been properly tested, that it didn't prevent transmission and spread, and that actually it wasn't as safe as it was purported to be. We are only now, two years later, finding out what the risks are and who is most at risk. We can now also do a personal risk assessment and decide for ourselves if the risk is worth it.
However, Nuremburg also has something to say about coercion which is just another word for mandating. Could the Governments of the world argue they were only following advice from the Pharma companies?
Surely Governments should have had the full information about the efficacy and risks associated with the "vaccine" available to them? Are we saying the Pharma companies lied to Governments? I mean, it's not like they would lie to Governments in order to be first to market and therefore maximise profits, would it?
With all the above, I do have to ask the questions:
When exactly did it become a thing to help people to die that are only minimally affected by their medical condition?
When did it become a thing for doctors to arbitrarily decide that some people deserved to be resuscitated and others not?
When did become a thing to want to kill people off to help the planet?
When did it become a thing to experiment on the majority of the population?
When did it become a thing to legally kill your fellow man (or woman, or child)?
When did life become so cheap?
UPDATE:
The More I think about this, the more I'm convinced that those in power across the World are in the thrall of various death cults.
Extinction Rebellion I've already mentioned, with their push to freeze the poor to death.
I've previously mentioned the Muslim faith and their ideas around martyrdom.
But the Davos set seem dead set in seeing large numbers of ordinary citizens dead.
The WEF want us to stop eating healthy fresh food and eat processed bugs instead. That'll see off another few percent of the population that can't afford to eat.
The WHO are no longer concerned with World health and instead push dangerous, deadly ideologies.
It's no wonder that all these various factions have some affinity with each other despite not having any obvious connection. The common denominator is the idea that life is cheap.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment