Euthanasia and Eugenics revisited

My last post discussed a topic that used to be viewed with horror but now is OK to many. What do you think about euthanasia and eugenics? As societal norms shift, these will soon be acceptable.

BS”D

There IS ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG, GOOD AND BAD.

LEGALIZING something does NOT make it OK.

Shifting societal norms do NOT make something that’s inherently evil become something that’s OK or good.

We used to know that!

If the speeding train keeps going at its current rate (G-d forbid), soon eugenics and euthanasia WILL be considered acceptable.

I’m going to reprint some previous material here, because I know many readers haven’t seen it.

What do you make of the following report explaining how euthanasia (doctors giving people poison to kill them) could save the Canadian healthcare system money? (They implemented the idea.)

I half thought it was fake when I saw a meme about the article, so I googled the title, and to my disbelief it’s real. And it’s up since 2017. How are they not ashamed?!

New research suggests medically assisted dying could result in substantial savings across Canada's health-care system.

Doctor-assisted death could reduce annual health-care spending across the country by between $34.7 million and $136.8 million, according to a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday.

The savings exceedingly outweigh the estimated $1.5 to $14.8 million in direct costs associated with implementing medically assisted dying.

Compare the above to this propaganda from when the Nazis were just getting warmed up:

"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

Canada has implemented the legalized murder act.

New Jersey is next (G-d forbid) - Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Smith and Rabbi Dr. Yosef Glassman are fighting a lone fight there.

“DISTURBING”: Experts Troubled by Canada’s Insane Euthanasia Laws

This photo provided by Gary Nichols shows him, right, with his brother, Alan, on the eve of his euthanization in Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada, in July 2019. Alan submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner. Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. “Alan was basically put to death,” his brother, Gary, says. (Courtesy Gary Nichols via AP)

Alan Nichols had a history of depression and other medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to “bust him out” as soon as possible.

Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.

His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die: hearing loss.

Nichols’ family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably — among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn’t using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.

“Alan was basically put to death,” his brother Gary Nichols said.

Disability experts say the story is not unique in Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive euthanasia rules — allowing people with serious disabilities to choose to be killed in the absence of any other medical issue.

Many Canadians support euthanasia and the advocacy group Dying With Dignity says the procedure is “driven by compassion, an end to suffering and discrimination and desire for personal autonomy.” But human rights advocates say the country’s regulations lack necessary safeguards, devalue the lives of disabled people and are prompting doctors and health workers to suggest the procedure to those who might not otherwise consider it.

Equally troubling, advocates say, are instances in which people have sought to be killed because they weren’t getting adequate government support to live.

Canada is set to expand euthanasia access next year, but these advocates say the system warrants further scrutiny now.

Euthanasia “cannot be a default for Canada’s failure to fulfill its human rights obligations,” said Marie-Claude Landry, the head of its Human Rights Commission.

Landry said she shares the “grave concern” voiced last year by three U.N. human rights experts, who wrote that Canada’s euthanasia law appeared to violate the agency’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They said the law had a “discriminatory impact” on disabled people and was inconsistent with Canada’s obligations to uphold international human rights standards.

Tim Stainton, director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, described Canada’s law as “probably the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”

During his recent trip to Canada, Pope Francis blasted what he has labeled the culture of waste that considers elderly and disabled people disposable. “We need to learn how to listen to the pain” of the poor and most marginalized, Francis said, lamenting the “patients who, in place of affection, are administered death.”

Canada prides itself on being liberal and accepting, said David Jones, director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Britain, “but what’s happening with euthanasia suggests there may be a darker side.”

___

Euthanasia, where doctors use drugs to kill patients, is legal in seven countries — Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain — plus several states in Australia.

Other jurisdictions, including several U.S. states, permit assisted suicide — in which patients take the lethal drug themselves, typically in a drink prescribed by a doctor.

In Canada, the two options are referred to as medical assistance in dying, though more than 99.9% of such deaths are euthanasia. There were more than 10,000 deaths by euthanasia last year, an increase of about a third from the previous year.

Canada’s road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their dignity and autonomy. It gave national leaders a year to draft legislation.

The resulting 2016 law legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide for people aged 18 and over provided they met certain conditions: They had to have a serious condition, disease or disability that was in an advanced, irreversible state of decline and enduring “unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be relieved under conditions that patients consider acceptable.” Their death also had to be “reasonably foreseeable,” and the request for euthanasia had to be approved by at least two physicians.

The law was later amended to allow people who are not terminally ill to choose death, significantly broadening the number of eligible people. Critics say that change removed a key safeguard aimed at protecting people with potentially years or decades of life left.

Today, any adult with a serious illness, disease or disability can seek help in dying.

Canadian health minister Jean-Yves Duclos said the country’s euthanasia law “recognizes the rights of all persons … as well as the inherent and equal value of every life.”

___

The countries that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide vary in how they administer and regulate the practices, but Canada has several policies that set it apart from others. For example:

— Unlike Belgium and the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for two decades, Canada doesn’t have monthly commissions to review potentially troubling cases, although it does publish yearly reports of euthanasia trends.

— Canada is the only country that allows nurse practitioners, not just doctors, to end patients’ lives. Medical authorities in its two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, explicitly instruct doctors not to indicate on death certificates if people died from euthanasia.

— Belgian doctors are advised to avoid mentioning euthanasia to patients since it could be misinterpreted as medical advice. The Australian state of Victoria forbids doctors from raising euthanasia with patients. There are no such restrictions in Canada. The association of Canadian health professionals who provide euthanasia tells physicians and nurses to inform patients if they might qualify to be killed, as one of their possible “clinical care options.”

— Canadian patients are not required to have exhausted all treatment alternatives before seeking euthanasia, as is the case in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Still, Duclos said there were adequate safeguards in place, including “stringent eligibility criteria” to ensure no disabled people were being encouraged or coerced into ending their lives. Government figures show more than 65% of people are being euthanized due to cancer, followed by heart problems, respiratory issues and neurological conditions.

Theresia Degener, a professor of law and disability studies at the Protestant University for Applied Sciences in northwestern Germany, said allowing euthanasia based exclusively on disability was a clear human rights violation.

“The implication of (Canada’s) law is that a life with disability is automatically less worth living and that in some cases, death is preferable,” said Degener.

___

Alan Nichols lost his hearing after brain surgery at age 12 and suffered a stroke in recent years, but he lived mostly on his own. “He needed some help from us, but he was not so disabled that he qualified for euthanasia,” said Gary Nichols.

In one of the assessments filed by a nurse practitioner before Nichols was killed, she noted his history of seizures, frailty and “a failure to thrive.” She also wrote that Nichols had hearing and vision loss.

The Nichols family were horrified that his death appeared to be approved based partly on Alan’s hearing loss and had other concerns about how Alan was euthanized. They lodged complaints with the British Columbia agency that regulates doctors and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, asking for criminal charges. They also wrote to Canada’s minister of justice.

“Somebody needs to take responsibility so that it never happens to another family,” said Trish Nichols, Gary’s wife. “I am terrified of my husband or another relative being put in the hospital and somehow getting these (euthanasia) forms in their hand.”

The hospital says Alan Nichols made a valid request for euthanasia and that, in line with patient privacy, it was not obligated to inform relatives or include them in treatment discussions.

The provincial regulatory agency, British Columbia’s College of Doctors and Surgeons, told the family it could not proceed without a police investigation. In March, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Cpl. Patrick Maisonneuve emailed the relatives to say he had reviewed the documentation and concluded Alan Nichols “met the criteria” for euthanasia.

The family’s parliamentary representative, Laurie Throness, asked British Columbia’s health minister for a public investigation, calling the death “deeply disturbing.”

The health minister, Adrian Dix, said the province’s oversight unit reviewed the case and “has not referred it for any further inquiry.” He pointed out that the euthanasia law does not allow for families to review euthanasia requests or be privy to hospitals’ decisions.

Trudo Lemmens, chair of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said it was “astonishing” that authorities concluded Nichols’ death was justified.

“This case demonstrates that the rules are too loose and that even when people die who shouldn’t have died, there is almost no way to hold the doctors and hospitals responsible,” he said.

___

Some disabled Canadians have decided to be killed in the face of mounting bills.

Before being euthanized in August 2019 at age 41, Sean Tagert struggled to get the 24-hour-a-day care he needed. The government provided Tagert, who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, with 16 hours of daily care at his home in Powell River, British Columbia. He spent about 264 Canadian dollars ($206) a day to pay coverage during the other eight hours.

Health authorities proposed that Tagert move to an institution, but he refused, saying he would be too far from his young son. He called the suggestion “a death sentence” in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Before his death, Tagert had raised more than CA$16,000 ($12,400) to buy specialized medical equipment he needed to live at home with caretakers. But it still wasn’t enough.

“I know I’m asking for change,” Tagert wrote in a Facebook post before his death. “I just didn’t realize that was an unacceptable thing to do.”

Stainton, the University of British Columbia professor, pointed out that no province or territory provides a disability benefit income above the poverty line. In some regions, he said, it is as low as CA$850 ($662) a month — less than half the amount the government provided to people unable to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heidi Janz, an assistant adjunct professor in Disability Ethics at the University of Alberta, said “a person with disabilities in Canada has to jump through so many hoops to get support that it can often be enough to tip the scales” and lead them to euthanasia.

Duclos, the national health minister, told The Associated Press that he could not comment on specific cases but said all jurisdictions have a broad range of policies to support disabled people. He acknowledged “disparities in access to services and supports across the country.”

Other disabled people say the easy availability of euthanasia has led to unsettling and sometimes frightening discussions.

Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”

Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Catherine Frazee, a professor emerita at Toronto’s Ryerson University, said cases like Foley’s were likely just the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s difficult to quantify it, because there is no easy way to track these cases, but I and other advocates are hearing regularly from disabled people every week who are considering (euthanasia),” she said.

Frazee cited the case of Candice Lewis, a 25-year-old woman who has cerebral palsy and spina bifida. Lewis’ mother, Sheila Elson, took her to an emergency room in Newfoundland five years ago. During her hospital stay, a doctor said Lewis was a candidate for euthanasia and that if her mother chose not to pursue it, that would be “selfish,” Elson told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

___

Canada has tweaked its euthanasia rules since they were first enacted six years ago, but critics say more needs to be done — especially as Canada expands access further.

Next year, the country is set to allow people to be killed exclusively for mental health reasons. It is also considering extending euthanasia to “mature” minors — children under 18 who meet the same requirements as adults.

Chantalle Aubertin, spokeswoman for Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti, said in an email that the government had taken into account concerns raised by the disabled community when it added safeguards to its euthanasia regulations last year. Those changes included that people were to be informed of all services, such as mental health support and palliative care, before asking to die.

Aubertin said those and other measures would “help to honor the difficult and personal decisions of some Canadians to end their suffering on their own terms, while enshrining important safeguards to protect the vulnerable.”

Dr. Jean Marmoreo, a family physician who regularly provides euthanasia services in Ontario, has called for specialized panels to provide a second opinion in difficult cases.

“I think this is not something you want to rush, but at the same time, if the person has made a considered request for this and they meet the eligibility criteria, then they should not be denied their right to a dignified death,” she said.

Landry, Canada’s human rights commissioner, said leaders should listen to the concerns of those facing hardships who believe euthanasia is their only option. She called for social and economic rights to be enshrined in Canadian law to ensure people can get adequate housing, health care and support.

“In an era where we recognize the right to die with dignity, we must do more to guarantee the right to live with dignity,” she said.

(AP)

Source: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/2114970/disturbing-experts-troubled-by-canadas-insane-euthanasia-laws.htmlhttps://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867

I also found this August 26, 2022 article, which says that “more than 10,000 people took their own lives with the help of medical personnel in Canada last year.”

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/26/23307068/canada-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-medical-assistance-in-dying-slippery-slope

What are the origins of this horrific murder? It’s simple: Eugenics.

I’m going to reprint some quotes from Dr. Robert Malone and from the Corbett Report which you may or may not have seen in my other articles already. These explain eugenics and show you exactly whom and what we’re dealing with.

Pure evil.

This information about eugenics and who’s promoting it was put together by Dr. Robert Malone.

Julian Huxley founded the United Nations body called UNESCO (abbreviated for the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization) in 1946, and he was the first Director General from 1946-1948.

The mandate for the new organization was laid out in Huxley’s 1946 UNESCO charter: UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

“The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

The original charter of UNESCO specifically calls for for a single world government to create peace and security. The charter then goes on to discuss the importance of population control.

The UNESCO, a United Nations NGO, was writing about the new world order in 1946.

But going deeper into the history of Julian Sorrel Huxley (1887-1975), it turns out he was also a devout life-long member of the British Eugenics Society, and served with John Maynard Keynes as secretary and later as its president.

The term "transhumanism" was coined by Julian Huxley. He wrote:

"I believe in transhumanism: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Peking man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny." Julian Huxley

Julian’s brother Aldous wrote a book called “Brave New World”, published in 1932.

Largely set in a futuristic World State, inhabited by genetically modified citizens and an intelligence-based social hierarchy, the novel anticipates huge scientific advancements in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation and classical conditioning that are combined to make a dystopian society.

The Huxley brothers were also the grandsons of the prominent biologist Thomas Henry Huxley. Thomas Huxley was part of the original eugenics movement in England, and was commonly known as “Darwin’s bulldog.” The Huxley brothers’ father was the biographer Leonard Huxley, whose writings include books about Darwin, his father (Thomas Huxley) and the eugenics movement.

So when Aldous Huxley wrote his dystopian science fiction novels … it wasn’t just based on fantasy, it was not just science fiction or a wild guess. His writings and works reflected a detailed understanding of the views and research being conducted by his family and by the intellectuals of the time. His works are a warning, he knew what was and is coming. These ideas from the scientists and leaders of the past have formed the backbone of many current policies. These policies include a one world government, population control, inverted totalitarianism, propaganda, command economy and collectivism. It is all there. The world is following the exact path that Aldous Huxley warned us about.

More on eugenics from this Corbett Report from 2009. This piece could be from today, it’s still so current:

The terrible injustice of our age has its roots in a most unlikely place: in the quaint villages and manicured gardens of the 19th century British gentry. Amongst that set lived one Francis Galton, a gentleman scientist who had investigated everything from meterorology to statistics. Shortly after his cousin, Charles Darwin, published his Origin of Species, Galton became fascinated with the idea that the "survival of the fittest" did not just take place between species, but within them. This idea became a pseudo-science, a study of the presumed racial characteristics of this group or that group with an aim to explaining why the various peoples of the world occupy the positions they do.

In order to confirm their pre-conceived notions of their own self-worth, Galton and his friends started a new field of inquiry called eugenics. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful because they were genetically superior, and it offered a simple solution for improving the lot of humanity: make sure that the affluent upper classes breed as much as possible (preferably within their own families, in order to preserve their superior stock), and make sure the lower classes breed as little as possible.

This junk science, pandering as it did to the most rabid, the most racist, the most elitist interests of the moneyed class, became universally accepted in the Western world within a generation. Soon, country after country had implemented laws to allow the government to sterilize those citizens it deemed to be "unfit."

The true horrors of this strain of thought came to light when the German eugenicists, based at the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute , gave the Nazi regime an ideological excuse to take the idea to its logical conclusion.

After World War II, when the full magnitude of the slaughter that had taken place in the name of eugenics began to become apparent, the eugenicist pseudoscientists scrambled to find a way to re-legitimize their racist and classist drivel. They wrote openly in the journals of their once-esteemed eugenics societies that they would now have to continue their studies and practices in a more covert fashion. Eugenics had to become crypto-eugenics.

This was accomplished in a number of ways. The British Eugenics Society, for one, merely changed its name to The Galton Institute. The American Eugenics Society morphed into the Population Council, a group set up by John D. Rockefeller III, where members continued to advocate the same policies for reducing the population of third world countries as they always had, only now they did so in the name of fighting "overpopulation" rather than fighting "bad genes."

Julian Huxley, brother of the famous writer, helped organize UNESCO in 1945. In the founding document of UNESCO entitled UNESCO: its philosophy and its purpose, he argues that one of the key aims of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization would be the re-legitimization of eugenics so the idea would once again become thinkable. He also went on to co-found the World Wildlife Fund with Nazi SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

Within a generation, science was once again ready to tell us why the only way to save humanity was to stop people from breeding: this time, the public was whipped into a furor not about Jews and Gypsies, but about carbon dioxide and environmental sustainability. The cover had changed, but the racist eugenicist text remained the same.

In the logic of the eugenicists, the meaning of human life is itself transformed. Instead of something valuable, something precious, something to be desired and nurtured, fought for and celebrated, humanity is re-imagined as a cancer, something inherently evil, the mere existence of which is a burden on the world. This, unsurprisingly, encapsulates the modern environmental movement's position almost perfectly: human life is no longer something to be treasured, but something to be measured in carbon and then reduced.

In the manmade global warming myth, humans are merely an obstacle to the proper functioning of nature. In the eugenicist fantasy, the earth is saved when people die. In both ideologies (if they really are separate) the ultimate genocide becomes thinkable.

Now the "leaders of the world" are meeting in Copenhagen to decide on the future of your world, of my world, of the world of our children and grandchildren. They are proposing a reorganization of the world economy. Punishing austerity is being urged in all corners. Groups of population control eugenicists are now arguingfor carbon offsets to be used to stop the developing world from having children. The choir of madness is growing by the day and everything seems set to reach an intolerable crescendo.

Remember, that was written in 2009. Their plans have only progressed further since then.

May G-d save us.

---

P.S. Most people aren’t OK with eugenics and euthanasia. I assume you’re not.

But what about homosexuality? A few decades ago, most people viewed it with equal horror. And yet now, so many think it’s fine. Why? Just because society says so.

I’m hoping that if you aren’t yet convinced that homosexuality is a such a problem, I can open your eyes by showing you how societal norms change and shape your perception of right and wrong. Remember that your beliefs about homosexuality have been molded by current societal norms. As society changes, G-d forbid, the next generation may think that eugenics and euthanasia are acceptable.

The answer to all this is that there is a G-d, a Creator of the world, and He and only He dictates right and wrong. And His Word never changes.

---

Sources for quotes from Dr. Robert Malone and the Corbett Report:

The future is now

https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091211_carbon_eugenics.htm