Activist Post
Brandon Tuberville
From the moment the Obama healthcare bill became an issue in mainstream American politics, anyone who suggested that the bill included rationing and/or death panels was considered any number of things – particularly a conspiracy theorist, racist, or someone who just hated the President for whatever general reason. I know whereof I speak. This was the general reaction I received after I wrote an article entitled Obamacare Is A Eugenics Program.
Yet regardless of public opinion, in the years and months since this article was published, the United States medical system has unmistakably moved in the direction of rationing and death panels.
In addition to the Presidential appointees who openly espouse rationing, as I discussed in the article linked above, the creation of rationing panels (aka death panels), and the massive cuts made to Medicare and Medicaid, the recent revelation of new procedures being used to determine who receives kidneys for transplant purposes should serve only to reinforce the belief that rationing is not coming – it is here.
In an article entitled, Under kidney transplant proposal, younger patients would get the best organs, published in the Washington Post on February 24, 2011, it is reported that the American organ transplant network is considering revamping its current procedure for determining who receives kidneys to a policy that favors younger, healthier people over older, sicker ones.
Currently, the decision to provide a kidney for transplant is based on who has been on the waiting list longest. However, the proposed changes would make it so that a formula must be followed in order to make the decision as to who received the kidney. Age and health would be the greatest factor in the formula, with preference given to those who are younger and generally healthier than older and sicker patients. All this would be done under the guise of maximizing the number of years of benefit provided by the organ.
Predictably, many bioethicists are lauding the changes proposed by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a private “non-profit” group who was contracted by the Federal government to conduct organ allocation, as a breakthrough.
The new guidelines being proposed by UNOS bear a striking resemblance to those put forward in the Obama health plan which focuses on “cost-effectiveness” and “outcome-based measures,” guidelines which effectively remove care from the elderly, disabled, and chronically ill as these individuals are seen to benefit much less in terms of years after the treatment. Indeed, these are the guidelines promoted by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, one of the rationing boards which was created under the 2009 Stimulus package in anticipation of the Obamacare passage.
As Arthur C. Caplan, a bioethicist [read eugenicist] from the University of Pennsylvania says in the Post article:
It’s a big shift. For a long time, the whole program has been oriented toward waiting-list time. This is moving it away from a save-the-sickest strategy to trying to get a yield in terms of years of life saved.
The eugenics movement, particularly in the area of healthcare, has existed in this country for ages. However, it has recently accelerated its move towards implementation of full-scale rationing and the cutting off of services and treatment to those deemed as unfit. Namely, those who need it the most.
Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, “cost-effective” and “outcome-based” measures, and the implementation of this new transplant policy is only the start.
Even both the Washington Post and Arthur C. Caplan admit that the kidney transplant procedures are not the only issue here. According to Rob Stein, Caplan claims that “if adopted, the approach could have implications for other decisions about how to allocate scarce medical resources, such as expensive cancer drugs and ventilators during hurricanes and other emergencies . . .”
Not only that, but Caplan openly admits that rationing is the goal.
This is a fascinating canary-in-a-cave kind of debate. We don’t want to talk about rationing much in America. It’s become taboo in any health-care discussion. But kidneys reminds us there are situations where you have to talk about rationing. You have no choice. This may shine a light on these other areas.
There is absolutely no doubt that these new guidelines are a “canary in the cave” type debate. The eugenicists that run our government have realized that we will accept cuts in existing healthcare programs to the elderly and disabled that amount to death panels. They have realized that we will accept the actual creation of death panels that operate openly in front of us and they have realized that we will put up virtually no resistance to them when this is done. Simply put, the canary in the cave is still singing and we have given the eugenicists no real reason to scale back their plans.
Nevertheless, the goal of this new proposal is clear to anyone with eyes to see. After all, the chronically ill, the disabled, and the elderly are usually the first to go in a eugenics-based society. Because these individuals no longer produce, and require the constant care of others, they are no longer considered to be an asset to those who view them merely as machines in the first place.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom
View Article With Links HERE
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Christianity Isn’t Dying, It’s Being Eradicated
Christina Odone
The Telegraph
It’s official: Britain is no longer a Christian nation. In banning Eunice and Owen Johns, a devout Christian couple, from fostering children, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson declared that we live in a secular state, and that the Johns’ religious convictions disqualified them from raising citizens of that state. We’ve outgrown Christianity, the judges professed. Instead, we have graduated to the status of a multicultural nation, blessed by a plurality of faiths.
Ironically, the justices who have pronounced that Britain is no longer Christian did so in a court where witnesses swear on the Bible and invoke God’s help in telling the truth. I do not imagine that these judges leave out the first word in “God Save the Queen” – nor would they shun an invitation to the Royal wedding, which is happening not at a registry office but the centrepiece of official Christendom, Westminster Abbey.
In taking part in these traditions, the judges – and the rest of us – are no different from past generations. For Christianity is not merely a part of life here, a provider of schools, hospitals and orphanages. It is the backbone of our laws, the impetus for the charity, justice and tolerance that have long been characteristic of this country. Its grand principles have inspired citizens to extraordinary actions, such as William Wilberforce’s campaign against slavery, and to ordinary kindnesses, such as reading to hospital patients or delivering meals on wheels. When David Cameron speaks of our moral duty to our Arab brothers, or shares his vision for the Big Society, he taps not into narrow party allegiance, but into our common Christian heritage.
The Christians of an earlier era may not have known about multiculturalism, or predicted that it would be the signature tune of our times. Yet their faith gave them a moral imperative that demanded respect for others: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Without this moral underpinning, multiculturalism sags into a factionalism of competing demands and conflicting interests. Instead, the Gospel’s commandment inspires the Christian majority to accommodate Jewish, Muslim, atheist and Hindu minorities, without losing sight of the basic principle of mutual respect.
This, indeed, is one of the reasons why non-Christian believers are so passionate in wanting to protect Christianity as a presence in public life. Jews, like Muslims, recognise that while Christians – and especially Anglicans – may enjoy a special status, their faith embraces all people as made, and loved, by God. The Act of Succession, which bans us Catholics from the throne, makes me angry; but like all members of a religious minority, I feel safer in a culture that cherishes spiritual values than in one that rubbishes them.
So it is not just Christians that the ruling in the Johns case will alarm and unsettle. As the judges wagged their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation (and which “ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood”), they were not describing the status quo: a strong majority of Britons still consider themselves to be Christian. Instead, they were making clear their desire to steer this country in a direction of their own choosing – one that matches the views of an increasingly strident group that is determined to scrub Christianity from public life.
Its efforts to push the majority faith underground are evident everywhere, from our bus stops to our workplaces. The British Humanist Association is campaigning to discourage “cultural Christians” from identifying themselves as believers in the forthcoming census. Jo Johnson, a Tory MP, wants to drop the prayer that traditionally opens Parliamentary sessions. Companies like BA forbid their Christian staff from wearing crosses to work. Schools and offices present Christian holidays as secular breaks. And now devout Christians are to be prevented from becoming foster parents.
According to our learned judges, “the aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is now mere rhetoric”. How excruciatingly unjust.
View Original Article HERE
Related: People Have Only Qualified Right to Christianity
The Telegraph
It’s official: Britain is no longer a Christian nation. In banning Eunice and Owen Johns, a devout Christian couple, from fostering children, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson declared that we live in a secular state, and that the Johns’ religious convictions disqualified them from raising citizens of that state. We’ve outgrown Christianity, the judges professed. Instead, we have graduated to the status of a multicultural nation, blessed by a plurality of faiths.
Ironically, the justices who have pronounced that Britain is no longer Christian did so in a court where witnesses swear on the Bible and invoke God’s help in telling the truth. I do not imagine that these judges leave out the first word in “God Save the Queen” – nor would they shun an invitation to the Royal wedding, which is happening not at a registry office but the centrepiece of official Christendom, Westminster Abbey.
In taking part in these traditions, the judges – and the rest of us – are no different from past generations. For Christianity is not merely a part of life here, a provider of schools, hospitals and orphanages. It is the backbone of our laws, the impetus for the charity, justice and tolerance that have long been characteristic of this country. Its grand principles have inspired citizens to extraordinary actions, such as William Wilberforce’s campaign against slavery, and to ordinary kindnesses, such as reading to hospital patients or delivering meals on wheels. When David Cameron speaks of our moral duty to our Arab brothers, or shares his vision for the Big Society, he taps not into narrow party allegiance, but into our common Christian heritage.
The Christians of an earlier era may not have known about multiculturalism, or predicted that it would be the signature tune of our times. Yet their faith gave them a moral imperative that demanded respect for others: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Without this moral underpinning, multiculturalism sags into a factionalism of competing demands and conflicting interests. Instead, the Gospel’s commandment inspires the Christian majority to accommodate Jewish, Muslim, atheist and Hindu minorities, without losing sight of the basic principle of mutual respect.
This, indeed, is one of the reasons why non-Christian believers are so passionate in wanting to protect Christianity as a presence in public life. Jews, like Muslims, recognise that while Christians – and especially Anglicans – may enjoy a special status, their faith embraces all people as made, and loved, by God. The Act of Succession, which bans us Catholics from the throne, makes me angry; but like all members of a religious minority, I feel safer in a culture that cherishes spiritual values than in one that rubbishes them.
So it is not just Christians that the ruling in the Johns case will alarm and unsettle. As the judges wagged their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation (and which “ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood”), they were not describing the status quo: a strong majority of Britons still consider themselves to be Christian. Instead, they were making clear their desire to steer this country in a direction of their own choosing – one that matches the views of an increasingly strident group that is determined to scrub Christianity from public life.
Its efforts to push the majority faith underground are evident everywhere, from our bus stops to our workplaces. The British Humanist Association is campaigning to discourage “cultural Christians” from identifying themselves as believers in the forthcoming census. Jo Johnson, a Tory MP, wants to drop the prayer that traditionally opens Parliamentary sessions. Companies like BA forbid their Christian staff from wearing crosses to work. Schools and offices present Christian holidays as secular breaks. And now devout Christians are to be prevented from becoming foster parents.
According to our learned judges, “the aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is now mere rhetoric”. How excruciatingly unjust.
View Original Article HERE
Related: People Have Only Qualified Right to Christianity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)