Archive for elderly

Neurosurgeon claims Obamacare will not treat citizens over 70

Posted in Death Panels, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Obama, ObamaCare with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 13, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Neurosurgeon claims Obamacare will not treat ci…, posted with vodpod

Bill Gates’ Big Brother scheme: register worldwide births by cell phone, get fingerprints, and vaccinate or is it really population control?

Posted in Big Brother, Bill Gates, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Soros, Ted Turner, Vaccinations, Warren Buffet, Warren Buffit with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 23, 2010 by saynsumthn

Bill Gates, co-chair and trustee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, gave a keynote address yesterday at the mHealth Summit, an annual gathering that focuses on improving health care through mobile technology.

Gates told an audience of more than 2,000 that if we could register every worldwide birth on a cell phone, we could ensure that children receive the proper vaccines.

Gates said computing technology has been great for health care, and there are plenty of opportunities to use the cell phone in clinic settings.

“About one-third [of that improvement] is by increasing income,” he said. “The majority has been through vaccines. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phoneget fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.

Gates said he’d like to see a birth registration system, and because it’s a new technology, “we should let 1,000 new ideas blossom.”

But, Gates’ “death panel” comments were made at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado implies that it is cost effective to allow certain sick people to die and to not spend any effort saving their lives.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Bill Gates And “Death Panels” , posted with vodpod

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

Gates is sooooo concerned about children that he funds eugenics and population control around the world and is a strong supporter of the nation’s largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood whose eugenic ideals are outlined in the documentary: Maafa21

DO NOT FORGET – WHAT THE ELITES ARE REALLY UP TO:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

2009: Abc news reports on secret meeting of the…, posted with vodpod

Bill Gates And “Death Panels”

Posted in Bill Gates, Death Panels, Eugenics, Maafa21, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , on September 14, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Bill Gates And “Death Panels” , posted with vodpod

Gates’ “death panel” comments were made over two months ago at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado.

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

Gates funds eugenics and population control around the world and is a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood whose eugenic ideals are outlined in the documentary: Maafa21

Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Posted in Assisted Suicide, Constitution, Death Panels, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Glenn Beck, Health Care, Obama, Robert Reich, Seniors with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

Liz Hunt with the UK Telegraph writes:

At around 4am on Monday, a friend of mine was woken by a call from the private care home in south-west London where her 98-year-old grandmother is resident.
“Mrs ——- has breathing difficulties,” the night manager told her.
She needs oxygen. Shall we
What do you mean?” my friend responded. “What’s the matter with her?
She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you prefer that we make her comfortable?”
Befuddled by sleep, she didn’t immediately grasp what was being asked of her. Her grandmother is immobilised by a calcified knee joint, which is why she is in the home. She’s a little deaf and frail, but otherwise perky. She reads a newspaper every day (without glasses), and is a fan of the darling of daytime television, David Dickinson. Why wouldn’t she get medical treatment if she needed it?
Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered through – she was being asked whether her grandmother should be allowed to die.
Call an ambulance now,” my friend demanded.
The person at the other end persisted. “Are you sure that’s what you want? For her to go to hospital.”
Yes, absolutely. Get her to hospital.

The Daily Telegraph reported two cases this week. Hazel Fenton, an 80-year-old from Sussex, was admitted to hospital in January with pneumonia and put on the Pathway regimen. Her daughter, Christine Ball, fought to stop her mother from being left to “starve and dehydrate to death

READ REST HERE: Pathway for the elderly that leads to legal execution

Also Read: ‘We’re Going to Let You Die‘ ( printed in the Wall Street Journal)

Death Panels in the UK?

Posted in Constitution, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Health Care, Population Control, Religion with tags , , , , , , , , on September 17, 2009 by saynsumthn

Many U.K. Families are Not Told When Doctors Deny Loved Ones Treatment, Report Has Found
By Patrick B. Craine

September 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to a new report, more than a quarter of U.K. families are not told when their loved ones are taken off of life support, reports the Daily Mail. Researchers from the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool conducted an audit of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, the end-of-life care plan that has brought ‘slow’ euthanasia into Britain through the back door.

The Pathway, approved by the National Health Service (NHS), allows doctors to deny “treatment,” including food and water, to patients they deem incurable and put them in continuous deep sedation until they die. According to the Daily Mail, this protocol is used in 300 hospitals and 560 care homes across the country.

According to the report, 28 percent of the patients’ relatives were not told that their loved one had been put on the pathway. In fact, doctors are not required by law to consult patients’ families – Britain’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act has given them the power to make decisions on behalf of patients who they deem mentally incapable without requiring them to heed the wishes of patients’ families. Social services and police have even been called to intervene in certain cases where families attempt to save the lives of their loved ones.

Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, confirmed other reports that the protocol is being used to kill patients that are not actually dying. “The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson’s or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time,” he told the Daily Mail. “Discussions about the future of patients are being bypassed; the supportive nature of hospitals has gone. We are hearing complaints from all round the country.

Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so we’re left with a crisis,” he continued. “The Government has said let’s develop a service to help people die at home – what they should be doing is helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment.

The problem is that there isn’t enough discussion between doctors and patients and their relatives,” he said. “Nobody is talking to them.”

The average age of the 4,000 patients audited was 81. Thirty-nine per cent had cancer, and others had conditions such as dementia, stroke, pneumonia, organ failure, and dementia. Patients averaged 33 hours on the pathway before death.

The BBC reported last month that continuous deep sedation is increasingly being used by U.K. doctors to slowly euthanize their patients. The practice of continuous deep sedation is estimated to be associated with 16.5 percent of all deaths in the country.

While, according to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition executive director Alex Schadenberg, the practice of deep sedation can legitimately be used to alleviate pain in certain extreme cases, he also warns that it “can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically.” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com last month that “a good palliative care physician won’t use the technique very often.

Fox and Friends and Pastor Stephen Broden: Health Care as Population Control?

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Constitution, Czar, Darwin, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Evolution, Glenn Beck, Health Care, Hitler, Holdren, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Obama, Pastor Stephen Broden, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Religion, Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 3, 2009 by saynsumthn

Dallas, Texas Pastor Stephen Broden , “Health Care – Sinister plan which will Depopulate the Elderly. ”

Broden has been speaking about about Health Care on Glenn Beck and now Fox and Friends. He mentioned that Obama’s Health Care Plan would be used as Population Control or de-population of the Elderly segment of Society.

This website has additional information on Death Panels , Health Care, Czars, etc.

Pastor Broden was recently in this documentary on Eugenics: Maafa21 on Fox News:
Check out Maafa21:

Fox and Friends and Pastor Stephen Broden: Health Care as Population Control?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Will National Health Care will take us to Death Panels and Euthanasia?

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Constitution, Darwin, Death Panels, Eugenics, Euthanasia, Euthanesia, Evolution, Health Care, Hitler, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Obama, Sterilization, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2009 by saynsumthn

Angus Reid Strategies, whose polling work on political, social and economic policy is frequently quoted in the world’s leading publications has published a Canadian poll revealing the country’s attitudes toward Euthanasia. After years of socialized medicine, this poll reveals some interesting facts.

From the August 11,2009 poll:

Half the sample was asked whether they support doctor-assisted suicide while the other half was asked if they supported euthanasia.

Results from both questions were virtually identical (77% supported legalizing euthanasia while 78% supported allowing doctor-assisted suicide).

In order to determine whether support for euthanasia varies in specific cases, respondents were presented with certain scenarios under which patients may seek to end their lives.

Support for euthanasia was strongest under scenarios where a patient is terminally ill and seeks to end their life early (85% support euthanasia in this scenario) and where a patient is in a coma with little chance of waking and had previously specified their wishes to have their life terminated if they were ever to find themselves in this condition (86% support euthanasia in this scenario).

Support for euthanasia plunges for patients seeking to be die at the same time as their spouse, a scenario that made headlines when British composer Edward Downes sought to end his life along with his wife at a private clinic in Switzerland last month. Three-in-four Quebecers (76%) strongly oppose euthanasia in this instance.

Quebecers are split on whether a parent should have the right to euthanize a child suffering from a severe form of a disease like cerebral palsy, a situation similar to the notorious Robert Latimer case. In this instance, 40 per cent of respondents would support euthanasia while 48 per cent would oppose it.

Nearly three-in-four respondents (72%) also said that they believe patients should also have the right to refuse life-saving treatment from doctors.

Finally, a near majority of Quebecers (49%) believe that provincial governments—and not the federal government—should be allowed to set the laws that govern whether euthanasia is legal and under what circumstances.

The findings are strikingly consistent across a variety of demographic groups. While older respondents tend to be slightly more opposed to euthanasia, there is surprisingly.

FACTS: Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood. see more on this in a film called: Maafa21.

So, in the current Health Care debate, could we see euthanasia on children whose parents find then inconvenient? Sure? and the elderly? You bet !

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past.“

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

In the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
“If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !