Quote:A bombshell new report has sent shockwaves around the world after an investigation into the high numbers of “Covid deaths” during the pandemic uncovered evidence that tens of thousands of elderly people were actually murdered to boost the mortality rates.
The data produced for the report indicated that people were being euthanized using a fatal injection of Midazolam.
The cause of their deaths was then listed as “Covid,” indicating that the virus was killing far more elderly people than it was.
The explosive data from the report was made public by Australian politician Craig Kelly, the national director of the United Australia Party.
The report obtained official UK government data on death rates and causes.

Quote:The data appears to show that vast numbers of elderly were murdered with an injection of the end-of-life drug Midazolam.
According to Kelly, the patients were euthanized in order to boost “Covid deaths” and ramp up public fear to garner support for lockdowns and vaccines.
While alerting the public about the data, Kelly declared that it exposes “the crime of the century.”
“These deaths were then falsely blamed on Covid, which was the basis of the public fear campaigns used to justify the lockdowns and mass-mandated injections of the public (including children) with an experimental medical intervention that had zero long-term safety data,” Kelly said in a post on X alongside copies of the data.

Quote:“Along the way, a small group pushing the need for mass-mandated injections made billions.
“This paper shows that the UK spike in deaths, wrongly attributed to COVID-19 in April 2020, was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was largely absent, but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections which were statistically very highly correlated (coefficient over 90 percent) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020.
“The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in UK suggests a possible policy of systemic euthanasia.”

(03-16-2024, 06:38 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I have never heard of the sources ... at least I don't think I have.  
How credible are they?  I don't know.

(03-16-2024, 07:26 AM)DISRAELI Wrote: In addition, there is a current campaign, at least in the United Kingdom, promoting the idea of voluntary "assisted dying" for the elderly. It still isn't legal here, but people can go to the Swiss organisation Dignitas. A celebrity recently announced that she was choosing that option, commenting on the discrepancy that people are allowed to put their pets "to sleep" when they are incurably ill, but aren'tpermitted that choice in their own cases. That is precisely the analogy I find disturbing, because nobody asks a pet's permission before putting it down "for its own good", and the argument seems to invite the world to treat the elderly in the same way.

I've been expecting this development ever since abortion was legalised. "Let them die with dignity" has exactly the same specious ring as "Every child should be a wanted child". It could come in stages. First, no more waiting if a patient lapses into a coma or simople unconsciousnes. Then, the "merciful" treatment of those diagnosed as incurably ill, or simply suffering from dementia. Finally the compulsory maximum age-limit; "Look, three-score years and ten is in the Bible, what are you complaining about?"

Quote: A father has discovered he is powerless to stop his perfectly healthy daughter being killed.

Quote:Imagine one day you discover that your adult daughter, who still lives with you, wants to be euthanised. As far as you are aware, she is healthy. She suffers from autism and ADHD, but no physical illnesses or disabilities that you know of. You know that she has faced many difficulties in her life, but you love her and desperately want to prevent her death. You are left fighting against her doctors, who encourage her decision and are perfectly happy to help her go through with this. To make this nightmare even worse, no one will even tell you why your daughter has been approved to die.

Quote:This is the awful reality facing one father in Alberta, Canada. A judge issued a ruling this week that clears the way for a 27-year-old woman, known to the court only as MV, to be accepted into Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme. Despite the attempts by her father – known as WV – to prevent this, there was really very little that could have been done. Under Canadian law, the court had no choice but to allow his daughter to be killed. According to the twisted logic of assisted-dying campaigners, this is the ‘compassionate’ option.

Quote:To be eligible for MAID, a patient needs to have a ‘grievous and irredeemable’ medical condition. In court, MV did not need to identify which medical condition she is supposed to be suffering from. She was not required to provide information about her symptoms or explain how they cause her to suffer. All her parents have seen is the evidence that she followed the correct procedures to access MAID, and that her eligibility was approved by two doctors.
 
WV argues that the doctors were wrong to conclude that his daughter met the MAID criteria. He told the courts that she was diagnosed in 2016 with autism-spectrum disorder. She also has a long history of seeking medical diagnoses for physical ailments. But, to her father’s knowledge, no diagnosis was ever made. He said it is unclear to him whether she suffers from any physical condition at all. He speculated that she may suffer from psychological conditions that ‘caus[e] her to believe that she suffers from physiological symptoms’.

Quote:MV’s case gives a disturbing insight into just how easy it can be to access MAID. Patients can simply shop around for doctors who are willing to give their approval. Her first application was turned down, because one of the two doctors she consulted said she did not meet the criteria (it is not known when she made this application). She made a second application in 2023. Again, one doctor determined her to be eligible and the other did not. The Alberta Health Services then allowed her to obtain a third assessment (a ‘tie-break’). However, the doctor selected to break the tie was the same doctor who had already agreed with MV’s first MAID application. Who was responsible for this decision? We will probably never know.
The court agreed that MV had no obligation to answer any of her parents’ questions about her medical condition or the MAID process. The judge declared that ‘the court cannot review a MAID applicant’s decision-making or the clinical judgement of the doctors and nurse practitioners’. Because of medical-privacy laws, her parents can never know why two doctors felt it was acceptable for the state to euthanise their daughter. Life and death decisions are being made in secret, by unaccountable figures.
 Assisted-dying campaigners often claim that they are on the side of compassion. But stopping a father from saving his daughter’s life is surely the cruellest outcome possible. Anyone who still believes that euthanasia prevents suffering needs to seriously think again.
Kevin Yuill is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE).

(04-06-2024, 12:47 PM)Maxmars Wrote: It seems heartbreaking, from an outsiders' perspective.  I hesitate to judge, because I don't know the reality behind the accounts as they are reported.  But I can't deny that it feels wrong to end a life rather than find a way to live ... I also know that such matters are, by definition, deeply personal.

Recently, I saw this article which describes another person 'wanting to die' because of their mental and life problems.

reported in Fox News: Dutch woman, 28, to be euthanized over mental illness after psychiatrist said it will 'never' get any better
 

---

A 28-year-old Dutch woman is slated to be euthanized next month because of her struggles with mental illness after her psychiatrist said her condition will never improve.

Zoraya ter Beek lives in a nice house in a small Dutch town near the German border with her boyfriend and two cats. Despite being physically healthy, she plans to end her life due to her depression, autism and borderline personality disorder, according to The Free Press.

---

Why are we calling it euthanasia rather than assisted suicide though?  Could it be an attempt to 'legitimize' or 'deescalate' the negative impact of euthanasia?  And are we not prepared to examine the eugenics philosophy behind institutionalizing end-of-life interventions by government (or commerce?)

(04-07-2024, 01:07 AM)Kenzo Wrote: Euthanasia  sound nicer than suicide i guess.....white wash ?

(04-07-2024, 09:25 AM)ArMaP Wrote: Under Portuguese law (yet to be implemented, as it waits further regulation) euthanasia and medically assisted suicide are two different things.

Euthanasia is when a doctor administers some drugs to provoke the death of the patient (according to the conditions mentioned in the law and the yet to be published regulations), medically assisted suicide is when the patients administers the drugs themselves, under the supervision of a doctor.

Both are considered medically assisted death.

The process will be started by the patient by asking a doctor chosen by the patient (the orientating doctor) to start the process. The request must be signed by the patient and the doctor, who must have access to the patient records, has a 20 days period to give an answer to the patient. If the doctor thinks the situation does not fall under the conditions for assisted death it closes the process and informs the patient. Both the patient and the doctor sign the report.

If the doctor thinks the request should be followed then a doctor specialised in the main reason for the asking of the assisted death is contacted by the orientating doctor. The specialist should give an answer in three weeks, and if the specialist's opinion is against the assisted death the process is stopped.

If the specialist agrees with the assisted death the patient is informed of that decision and asked again by the orientating doctor if the assisted death is still wanted. If the patient still wants the assisted death that decision should be signed and added to the process.
If the orientating doctor or the specialist has any doubts about the capacity or will of the patient to make an informed, serious and free decision about assisted death then they have to contact a specialist in psychiatry. If this specialist's opinion is against the assisted death then the process is stopped.

If all the opinions are in favour of the assisted death then the orientating doctor contacts a committee created specifically for the analysis and verification of the assisted death requests. If the committee's opinion is against the assisted death then the process is stopped.

If all the opinions are in favour of the assisted death then the orientating doctor informs the patient of the methods (assisted suicide or euthanasia) and the drugs to be used, and they choose a date and time for the procedure. 

Just before the administration of the drugs, either by the patient or by the orientating doctor (in the presence of at least another doctor chosen by the orientating doctor), the orientating doctor asks the patient if they still want assisted death to go on, and if there isn't a clear answer or if the patient appears to show any doubt about the procedure then everything is cancelled.

The decision about the assisted death is exclusively of the patient, and if the patient isn't able to sign the documents then they can chose a person to do it for them, in which case there will be a signed document, officially recognised by a notary in front of the orientating doctor. That person is chosen only for that specific role and cannot be someone that will have some gain in the death of the patient.

I don't know how other European countries' laws are, but I think they are not that different from the Portuguese law, so it's not easy (or possible) for someone else to chose the assisted death of someone else.

(04-07-2024, 11:32 AM)Kenzo Wrote: And before the whole " process" get`s started , who has had access to influence the person opinions ....if it were some crooked doctor or psychologist and they were encouraging the person to do medically assisted death .

Quote:I am against creating systems for medically assisted death , it leaves back door to potentially some people act wrong in the whole process . Too many crazy and evil and stubid people are in positions in medical field /psychology that i think creating this is wrong direction .