eugenics anyone?

My opinion:

I don't think Obama will try to push an active eugenics program as such.

However, his medical plan will include limitations on medical services for the people. That means, if a person is deemed "not worthy" of expensive treatment, then treatment thru the plan will be denied.

"Not worthy" people will include those who are "too old", "too far gone", or not living in a a healthy manner (drug and alcohol abuse, overeating, not exercising, etc.).

That means, limitations on quality of life procedures (hip and knee replacements), and life saving procedures (organ transplants), among other things.

Examples of this can be seen in England's health care system. It's a rationing of health care services.
 
"Not worthy" people will include those who are "too old", "too far gone", or not living in a a healthy manner (drug and alcohol abuse, overeating, not exercising, etc.).

:eek3: You can see why I am constantly advocating against Eugenics in any such form & shape.
 
However, his medical plan will include limitations on medical services for the people. That means, if a person is deemed "not worthy" of expensive treatment, then treatment thru the plan will be denied.

"Not worthy" people will include those who are "too old", "too far gone", or not living in a a healthy manner (drug and alcohol abuse, overeating, not exercising, etc.).
not a very socking agenda coming from a narcissist like the Obamamessiah :fruit:


How does that Kool Aid taste now?
 
any of the agenda mentioned in this thread happening is highly doubtful. in anyway shape or form.

to "pull it off" Obama would have to completely change our government within the next 3 years. Over run every republican, many democrats, have an iron grip on the military and have himself declared dictator. .

if he started trying to pull that stuff, even Obama's supporters wouldn't vote for him again. He could never win the next election otherwise. So I say no way will the Obamamessiah ever reach that kind power.

Many voters drank the Kool Aid but most are starting to see things for what they really are....


I may not be an Obama fan but I don't see him completely changing our government...
I think it's not so much changing the government as it is changing the public's viewpoint. In order for any kind of eugenics program to be passed, the public must first accept the philosophy that it's for the good of the people (majority).

That will be a little harder to make convincing in American society where traditionally we have emphasized the value of the individual. Other societies, such as China, focus on the value of the societal group over the value of the individual. That's why China was able to pass it's "one child per couple" law with little opposition in their country.

But, as the example of the German students showed, the indoctrination begins with the children. In the Hitler era schools, children's math classes included word problems that compared the monetary value of a healthy worker to a handicapped non-worker, as though people were just accounting ciphers.

If our government schools begin indoctrinating children to think more about their society than the individual, then the seeds of eugenics can be sown. If you think that can't happen, observe how children are currently indoctrinated about global warming, and how awful big, bad America is to other countries.

I don't think Obama's agenda will be as blatant as Hitler's. Obama's plans will be more subtle but still effective.

I hope that I'm wrong.

:2c:
 
I'll let Dr. Emanuel speak for himself:

The financial crisis and health care

By Ezekiel J Emanuel
October 12, 2008


The financial markets are gyrating. The world economy is teetering. The U.S. government is making a $700 billion or more bailout to avert a worldwide disaster. No surprise, health care has become a side show. Or has it? Not only does this upheaval actually make health-care reform more pressing, it makes comprehensive reform—change in the way health care is paid for and how care is organized and delivered— more realistic and feasible.

“Socialism” has come to Wall Street. For more than 60 years, Republicans have criticized as “socialized medicine” any reform proposal that gave government a central role in funding health services or in regulating providers.

The charge has always been false. True socialism requires governmental ownership of the means of production. No health-care reform proposal, even the most ardent single-payer plans, ever suggested the government should employ doctors, or own hospitals, pharmacies, home health-care agencies or drug companies. Moreover, in the current system, the government already pays for more than 40 percent of the health-care bill. With a Republican administration leading the takeover of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, American International Group Inc., and the purchase of housing securities, it hardly seems credible to criticize health-reform plans as socialized anything.

The phenomenal failure of Wall Street dramatically changes the appetite of the country for regulation and for shoring up the safety net. With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security, and health care is a critical element of that.

This financial crisis also means Americans may be more willing to forgo gold-plated comprehensive insurance that covers everything with few restrictions. Under the threat of losing everything, Americans may feel content with the guarantee of a decent plan that covers cost-effective treatments with some restrictions on choice and services to save money. This should enhance the chances for a bipartisan deal on health care.

With politicians and regulators committing $700 billion in a single week, spending a few hundred billion to make the health-care system cover everyone more efficiently and at higher quality begins to look like chump change. This upfront spending can create the infrastructure—such as systematic measurement of quality and patient outcomes—for serious health-care cost savings. After the last several weeks, health-care investment appears more reliable—and politically palatable—than bailing out bankers and other gamblers.

The huge increase in the federal debt that these bailouts will entail intensifies the pressure to rein in health-care costs. This favors comprehensive rather than incremental reform.

Before the financial crisis, the most likely options for controlling government health-care costs involved tinkering around the edges—striking a new deal between Medicare and physicians on their pay, initiating more demonstration projects in paying for performance and efficiency, and assessing comparative effectiveness of new tests and treatments.

While absolutely valuable, these policies are far from certain to control health-care costs—and it will be five or 10 years before they are likely to generate savings. Paradoxically, only more radical changes in the health-care system are likely to actually save money and improve care—and more quickly. For instance, the Wyden-Bennett health-care bill—which proposes more extensive changes than either Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s proposals—is the only health-care legislation scored as budget neutral by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO said that in the first year of full implementation, the expenditures would equal revenues, and in subsequent years the Wyden-Bennett bill would generate a surplus because it would save the health-care system money. The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and management consulting firm, estimated that within a decade this plan could save as much as $1.4 trillion. No other health-care legislation comes close.

Some will find this comprehensive reform unpalatable because it removes employers from health care altogether. As the economy stagnates, this may be absolutely necessary to keep employers afloat. Facing a rising deficit, more comprehensive reform that can really control costs begins to look more realistic than a few untested adjustments here or there.

The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It’s beginning to look like we might just have all three.

While the financial crisis has appeared to knock health care off the national agenda, in the strange chemistry that is American politics, it may in fact make comprehensive health-care reform more politically feasible, indeed maybe even absolutely necessary for fiscal stability.

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel is chair of the department of bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.
The financial crisis and health care - Chicago Tribune

The red highlighted areas are mine.

More of his words:

"What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?"
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
 
For comparison:

The source: Gerhard Wagner, "Rasse und Bevölkerungspolitik," Der Parteitag der Ehre vom 8. bis 14. September 1936. Offizieller Bericht über den Verlauf des Reichsparteitages mit sämtlichen Kongreßreden (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1936), pp. 150-160.

...The millions and billions that we have spent and the past, and the about one billion marks that we sacrifice today for the care of the genetically ill, is a squandering of our national resources that we National Socialists cannot justify when we consider the needs of the healthy population. Healthy working class families with numerous children today earn only enough for the necessities of life, which means that it is irresponsible that the state must provide the money for some genetically ill families who may have several family members in institutions costing thousands of marks annually.

The National Socialist state cannot repair the failings of the past, but through the "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Ill Offspring," it has seen to it that in the future the inferior will not be able to produce more inferior children, saving the German people from a steady stream of new moral and economic burdens resulting from genetic illnesses...

The rights and necessities of the whole people supersede the right of the individual to his own body.

The state is responsible for ensuring health, the party is responsible for providing leadership in the area....
Nazi Racial Policy

More:

HANDICAPPED
 
this is the brother of rahm emanuel not liking the spotlight being pointed at him.......we are in trouble folks

For the hearing and hoh, watch this...

YouTube - Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed! Red Alert!!!!!!

I'm hoh, can't hear alot of it to make a transcript, so if anyone can, please post one, we'd appreciate it.


Here's the transcript for that YouTube video. Full transcript can be found here - http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/transcript_june10.doc :

DR. CONWAY: So we'll do the same format. It will be three minutes, and then time for questions. We'll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
MR. CHAITKIN: Anton Chaitkin. I'm a historian and a history editor for Executive Intelligence Review. President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there.
The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill, and poor people, and thus save, as the President says, $2- to $3 trillion by taking lives considered not worthy to be lived, as the Nazi doctors said.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington State law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster.
Dr. Emanuel's movement for bioethics and euthanasia, and this Council's purpose, directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler's killing of patients, and then other costly and supposedly unworthy people. Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12th that a crisis, war, and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program.
Hitler told Dr. Brandt, his in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the Hippocratic oath should be junked. Doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
You on the Council are drawing up the procedures to list to be used to deny care, which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
Disband this Council and reverse the whole course of this Nazi revival now.
DR. CONWAY: Thank you.

8 MINUTES LATER……..

A quick break. I'm going to ask for questions and comments.
Ms. Zuckerman, if you can come up, and I'm opening it up to the panel. Yes, we are still going to Ms. Williams, you are still going to get to talk. I'm going to ask Ms. Zuckerman to come up and join you.
We're going to take a quick stop in the panel to open it up for comments or questions, because we have a few folks who have to potentially go. The whole transcript will be available, though, and all comments will be shared with all Council members.
DR. EMANUEL: I apologize that I have to go back to an important meeting. I do want to just clarify one thing about my own since my reputation has been besmirched here, is I think I do have a very long record of writing against the legalization of euthanasia.
So the association of me and that seemed a little strange given I don't know at least 30 years or 25 years of writing on the topic, against the legalization. So just to clarify the record for everyone in the room.
Thank you.
MR. CHAITKIN: You stated that you were opposed to assisted suicide, but that you are in favor of the withdrawal of medical care, which accomplishes the same thing. So you had this article?
DR. CONWAY: Sir, your statement was read into the record. It's not the time for debate, but we appreciate your comments. And we apologize for the break in the panel, but we just wanted to have that break.
 
Thank you for the full transcript.

Now you see how they are avoiding the spotlight they have been put on. They don't like their hidden agenda being exposed for the nation as well as the world to see.

Hopefully this will put off their so called "program" in the back burner for the time being, but they'll be back, sooner or later.

Yiz
 
Thanks for sharing. :) It is still a touchy issue here in Canada since two of our provinces ended the eugenics program in 1972 and 1986.

* shudders *

But Reba is right, it starts with putting societal values ahead of individual rights. That's why so many non-Canadians have a hard time wrapping their head around why minorities still have problems in Canada and are lagging behind the Americans.
 
"Not worthy" people will include those who are "too old", "too far gone", or not living in a a healthy manner (drug and alcohol abuse, overeating, not exercising, etc.)..
:hmm:

i wonder if being deaf would be eventually be considered "Not Worthy" to recieve SSDI, medicare and any other government assistence...
 
:hmm:

i wonder if being deaf would be eventually be considered "Not Worthy" to recieve SSDI, medicare and any other government assistence...

Only if we let it happen. Preventative Education is key for our survival if we want to try to prevent it from happening to us.

The more we educate the masses regarding all people of various disabilities, the less ignorance we'll have to deal with them.

We need to get the word out as much as we can and hope nothing comes out of these eugenic programs that would eventually target us.

Yiz
 
The problem is how you interpret their statements and you clearly don't understand the concept of cost-benefits vs risk-benefits. Everything comes with a price.

It's quite ironic that Republicans are upset about the universal health care when in fact, they're practicing eugenics of the disadvantaged, they literally let them die because they think that only worthy people are entitled to have healthcare which means, "Only people who make money should be insured."

Also, remember, even with private insurance, you will be denied if the private company determines that you're too expensive and too risky. There is ALWAYS a limit to how much insurance can pay.

Better to insure everyone than to leave millions of Americans without insurance. I care about public health, I am sorry you don't feel that way.
 
Better to insure everyone than to leave millions of Americans without insurance. I care about public health, I am sorry you don't feel that way.
Just today, I was thinking, "I can't wait till those 46 million uninsured die. Then we can find a way to yank away insurance from another 46 million people and watch them die in the streets! Mwahahahhahahahahahaahaaa!!!!" Then, I took out my cigar wrapped in insurance policies for poor children and smoked it. So I'll get lung cancer. Who cares? I got my insurance. Then I kicked a puppy. Good times.

I hope that satiated your need to feel morally superior. Maybe now we can get beyond the ego-stroking and talk about actual consequences about the Democrats' plan. After all, there are a lot of people who want medical care to be affordable for all (Not me of course. Mwahhahahahahahahahaaa!) who believe universal health care is the worst way to go.
 
shudders.

It sounds really awful.

Hope americans come to their senses before it is too late.

Thanks for the transcripts.
 
Source: Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions - Political News - FOXNews.com

072009_holdren.jpg


Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions

John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.

President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.

He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works (clicky) authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.

"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."

But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.

While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.

Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"

"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.

But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.

"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.

Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.

"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.

Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.

Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.

Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.

"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.

"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.

Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.

"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"

"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.

Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.

"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."

Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.

Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an (clicky) experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.

"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.

Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.

"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.

"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."
 
credit to kokonut who posted this...

Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Deaf man asks if he will get shut out under Obamacare?

Photobucket
Here's a deaf college student, Noah Logue, from a local college in St. Louis asks a Democrat at a Townhall meeting whether if he'll get punished under "Obamacare." The question was a potent one since under "Obamacare" special needs citizen may not qualify. In short, if ya a poor kwipple, deaf, mute, blind or whatever limiting conditions you may have, you may not qualify under "Obamacare" when it comes to rationing medicine.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

Gee, what a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that some people do have hearts of gold! Oh, btw, Noah Logue speaks quite well for a guy with cochlear implants as some of you can tell. Though no need for him to sign in this situation. He did just dandy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWr9rJCMlI8&fmt=]YouTube - Noah Logue Asks Dem Officials: Will Handicapped People Like Me Get Medical Services Under Obamacare?[/ame]

Here's the note used by Noah at the meeting seen in the video.

CONCERNS FROM A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY
McCASKILL TOWN HALL MEETING
JULY 27, 2009

I am a young adult who is profoundly deaf with a cochlear implant, starting my second year of college in September.

I would not be able to hear anything without my implant, except maybe a jet engine.

With my cochlear implant, I can talk on the telephone, I can carry on oral conversations, and I can hear music. It has enriched my life tremendously.

Cochlear implant surgery is not inexpensive. Currently it costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per ear.

After this surgery it is important to receive the correct education afterward so the child can learn how to talk. It is expensive to educate a child who is deaf.

It is also expensive to provide services to a child who is deaf who is not oral. Interpreters are needed for them to talk to people who are hearing.

When my mother told me of the health bills being considered by the House and Senate, and how they impacted disabled people, I wanted people to know how that would impact me and how difficult it would be to succeed in life without the services I have received.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is involved in the wording of the House Bill said, “Medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…” “.

Does that include me? If medical decisions are being made by the government; not by my doctors, my parents, or me, I would be determined to be too expensive to receive the services I need to be able to navigate my way in the world.

This is a bad plan for those with special needs. Tell Senator McCaskill to vote NO.

Noah Logue
St. Louis, MO

Kokonut Pundit: Deaf man asks if he will get shut out under Obamacare?
 
DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE


THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

ezekiel_emanuel.jpg


DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post
 
Back
Top