Sunday, 5 February 2012

Liverpool Care Pathway – And The Perversion Of Medical Ethics

A BPACnz publication on LCP leads thus:

New Zealand’s population is ageing. People aged over 65 years are projected to make up over one quarter of New Zealand’s population in the 2030s, compared to 12% in 2005.

Age is one of the LCP specific criterion for being placed on the Pathway.

Clearly, as the opening preamble of this publication, the primary concern must be an ever-increasing burden posed by an over-population of silver-haired oldies. The social architects clearly cannot permit this state of affairs to continue unchecked. Enter the Liverpool Care pathway…

Nazification of Medical Ethics

In 1999, Peter Singer, a former professor at Australia’s Monash University, became the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values. At Princeton, Singer is moulding and shaping the views of future leaders in medicine, law, education and business.

As with many of his Nazi predecessors, Singer vociferously condemns killing animals, but does not flinch at killing humans. “I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,” he told the Cape Cod Times. “For me, the relevant question is what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?” he asked. “Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.” Singer questions the validity of permitting ‘defective’ human children continuing in their pathetic existence. Nazi eugenics lives! This report from the Cape Cod Times:

Ethicist: OK to kill disabled newborns
October 06, 2001

Singer said society condones other efforts by parents to influence their future children's attributes. On some Ivy League campuses, ads in student papers offer big money to entice female students to donate eggs.

"This is clearly the genetic supermarket at an early stage," he said.

If it is all right for people to try to breed children with high IQs and other desirable characteristics, Singer asked, what is wrong with euthanizing newborns who would suffer throughout their lives because of a severe disability?

Downs syndrome children are prime candidates for his pogrom. In his book, Practical Ethics, Singer writes: “We cannot expect a child with Down syndrome to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen movie or to be a respectable athlete or basketball or tennis player.” (50) 

He suggests that parents may wish to prevent becoming attached to their baby with Down syndrome: “When this can be done at a very early stage of the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible.”(51)

This is what happens when these ideas are permitted to enter the main-stream
This report from the Cape Cod Times:

Germans say grave holds Nazi victims

October 07, 2006
MENDEN, Germany — The skeletal remains of at least 51 people - many of them children - have been unearthed, and authorities suspect some were killed by the Nazis because they were disabled and considered worthless by the regime.
The Holocaust Children

This Nazi ethos is not even recognised as such

Singer is pleased with his notoriety. He has explained that any protests directed at him have had a good side because they make him better known and have given him the opportunity to talk about the things he wants to talk about. He noted that he is “getting students to think.” (46)

“Professor Death”

Controversial bioethicist Peter Singer talks about the difference between humans and animals (none), the virtues of euthanasia (many) and why some babies are better off dead.

The lectures by “Professor Death,” as his critics like to call him, are not disrupted anymore. Actually, at a “practical ethics” class on a Monday morning not long ago, his students barely made a sound.

In the 30s, Nazi eugenicists had supporters and sympathisers worldwide. Unbelievably, this Death Culture of Medical Ethics survived the post-war years. Latter day Heims and Mengeles continued their horrific medical experiments in post-war America.

This report from the Cape Cod Times:

Past medical testing on humans revealed

ATLANTA - Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates.
Such experiments included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, squirting a pandemic flu virus up the noses of prisoners in Maryland, and injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital.

Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government's apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.

This Death Culture of Medical Ethics is again entering the main-stream.

It is an old ploy to keep floating an idea that, thereby, it may cease to appear so novel and extreme.Singer has gained the opportunity to 'talk about the things he wants to talk about'. 

Thus does the outrageous gain plausibility and acceptance, by becoming almost tiresome by its very mention.

It slips in under the radar, a fifth column of ideas that are no longer foreign to our concepts of right and wrong simply because they have permeated our very consciousness and infected our moral outlook, a dark cancer in our soul.

Thus, what was unacceptable is become acceptable and normal. Moral.

No comments:

Post a Comment