It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(LPAC)-What would you think about a scholarly article entitled: "What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?" If you knew no more than the title, you might wonder if it was written by the grandaddy of British utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham; or perhaps by '___'-pervert Aldous Huxley; or by Nazi doctor Karl Brandt.
Good guesses... but wrong.
This is the title of a 1998 paper co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel, a leading adviser to Budget Director Peter Orszag and a member of President Obama's elite 15-person Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is charged by the Obama administration with preparing the list of which medical procedures will henceforth be permitted, and which not, with an eye to cutting $2 trillion from health care payments-to be handed over to the bankrupt hedge funds and banks which run the HMOs.
Brandt, Goerring, and Hitler himself have nothing on these modern Nazis. Ezekiel Emanuel's co-author of the mentioned paper, Margaret Battin-like Emanuel, a bio-ethicist-has written other papers with sick titles like "The Least Worst Death: Selective Refusal of Treatment"; "Terminal Sedation: Pulling the Sheet Over Our Eyes"; and "Assisted Suicide: Can We Learn From Germany?" Is this any different than Hitler's doctor Karl Brandt's defense of euthanasia at Nuremberg: "Death can mean deliverance. Death is life-just as much as birth. It was never meant to be murder."
And don't forget that, among the means identified at Nuremberg as causing the "murder and ill-treatment of Civilian Populations" was the "inadequate provision of surgical and medical services" - exactly the policies being imposed on the U.S. today by Summers, Geithner, Orszag, and their British masters.
As Lyndon LaRouche stated unequivocally yesterday: "The Hitler program has been revived by the Obama administration."
"This is straight Nazi stuff," LaRouche elaborated. "It's not a quibble; it's not an interpretation. This is a direct copy of the philosophy of the Nazis. You cannot duck that issue. This is Nazi stuff. And it's explicit.
This is the title of a 1998 paper co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD
Ezekiel J. Emanuel is Head of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health and a breast oncologist. He is on extended detail as a special advisor for health policy to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
After completing Amherst College, he received his M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry. He received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. His dissertation received the Toppan Award for the finest political science dissertation of the year. In 1987-88, he was a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
Ethical Principles & Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects
Scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has also posed some troubling ethical questions. Public attention was drawn to these questions by reported abuses of human subjects in biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World War. During the Nuremberg War Crime Trials, the Nuremberg code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. This code became the prototype of many later codes(1) intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner.
The codes consist of rules, some general, others specific, that guide the investigators or the reviewers of research in their work. Such rules often are inadequate to cover complex situations; at times they come into conflict, and they are frequently difficult to interpret or apply. Broader ethical principles will provide a basis on which specific rules may be formulated, criticized and interpreted.
Three principles, or general prescriptive judgments, that are relevant to research involving human subjects are identified in this statement. Other principles may also be relevant. These three are comprehensive, however, and are stated at a level of generalization that should assist scientists, subjects, reviewers and interested citizens to understand the ethical issues inherent in research involving human subjects. These principles cannot always be applied so as to resolve beyond dispute particular ethical problems. The objective is to provide an analytical framework that will guide the resolution of ethical problems arising from research involving human subjects.
This statement consists of a distinction between research and practice, a discussion of the three basic ethical principles, and remarks about the application of these principles.