It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Santorum telling ridiculous lies about my country

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

Santorum is the one candidate who would like to see Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale actually become reality. Think about that for a minute.

Furthermore, I have no idea why they're allowing him to parade around in the first place -- unless the Republicans really are that stupid. A few years ago, we told him to GTFO of Pennsylvania in no uncertain terms. There's no way he can win this state in either primary or election, and it's not like PA is small. It's a terrible strategy to just write us off like that.

Wait. I just happened to look over at my television, and the headline said "Santorum believes prenatal testing encourages abortion". I was all set to hit the reply button, and I didn't even listen to what was being said (it was only on for background noise), but seriously? I work in a pediatric hospital. I can't tell you how many babies we get lifeflighted to us immediately after they're born because problems were detected in utero, and either the NICU or CICU are waiting for them (and sometimes an OR if necessary -- everything is set up and ready to go with the surgeon on the way). That life is saved. With Santorum's logic, that baby would die because nobody would be prepared.

Whichever way you look at it, this guy's an idiot. Then again, any PA resident could've told you that years ago.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Malcher

You can also state these types of things in your living will, and even declare a person that will speak/make decisions for your care if you are unable to do so yourself.

For some people, medical intervention will be the extent of the living will, but that isn't necessarily true for every living will.

This is why I say that everyone needs one. You never know what will happen to you, and it is better to have a plan for any type of situation where your mental faculties are impaired.

If you make the living will while you are completely cognizant, there shouldn't be an issue in the case of dementia, brain damage, coma, locked-in syndrome, or any other loss of mental faculties/capacities.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:27 PM
Santorum is a moron. He is trying to appeal to Bible freaks. That's not his only revelation of ignorance and it won't be his last. Luckily, the secular nation is waking up.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Malcher

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. You dug up some pretty scary info indeed.

Doctors and Hospital Boards are increasingly winning Court battles that give them the right to withdraw and withhold treatment from disabled and terminally ill patients. Those opposed to EAS believe that this is happening for economic reasons. Individual autonomy has increasingly given way to decision-making by health care professionals and bioethicists, whose "futile care theory" measures the value of human life according to the financial cost of keeping the individual alive. In Holland where euthanasia is legal many people now carry anti-euthanasia passports' because they are afraid they may be killed if admitted to hospital.

I will be unraveling this piece right here with a couple of findings I made. I'm afraid little of the above is actually true. First there is the basic law of the medical field. It states that a doctor by law has two duties towards a patient:

1. To ease or take away suffering
2. To keep a patient alive

Especially number 2 contradicts any form of 'involuntary euthanasia'. It simply cannot happen under normal circumstances. Also, budget is never an issue when it comes to saving a life, since rule 2 is more powerful than any budget. If it is physically possible to keep the patient among the living, it shall be done.

These basics apply at all times, except in cases of active euthanasia and passive euthanasia

With active euthanasia the patient (almost always terminally ill) will request her doctor death by injection. A doctor may comply if he is convinced of the following parameters:

- This is a voluntary, well-thought-out decision
- The patient is determined
- The patient experiences intolerable suffering with no end in sight,

He also always needs to consult a second doctor and confirm that this second doctor is also convinced of the parameters mentioned above.

There is also a law in The Netherlands that gives people the possibility to make a Future Euthanasia Request. This enables people to put on record the will to be actively euthanized given very specific circumstances where it is not sure if the patient is determined. An example is suffering from a severe blood cloth in the brain that renders one paralyzed and unable to speak or otherwise communicate. In these cases the Future Euthanasia Request is to be consulted. If none exists, euthanasia cannot happen.

In cases of passive euthanasia, a person simply refuses to be treated any longer. A doctor always has to respect this decision, for the rules only apply to patients and the person refuses to be a patient.

Source in Dutch, sorry.

The text also mentions an Anti-Euthanasia-Passport. I googled this and got squat. Googling for an Euthanasia-Passport however, gave me some results.

In the Netherlands there is something called a Euthanasia-Passport. It is a card complete with photo and signature to alert doctors of your wish not to be medically treated/kept alive in certain situations. This is a portable extension of the Life Testament, an official document in which one can write up a request to respect his/her will for passive euthanasia in cases in which he or she cannot communicate this. In other words: do not revive.

Source in Dutch, sorry.

So if you do not have a Future Euthanasia Request or a Life Testament/Euthanasia-Passport, you will never be euthanized. And if you do, then it was your choice all along. Therefore, there is no such thing as involuntary euthanisation.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:44 PM
reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

I'm pretty familiar with the euthanasia debate and practice in the Netherlands and I can second your OP.
That Santorum person is a liar.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:45 PM
The 'santorum euthenasia freakout' lie is about as bad as it gets. So is the 'death panels freakout' lie.
How such people get so paranoid, and stay out of the crazy house is beyond me.
So, what happens exactly, Does Santorum's two braincells start rubbing up against each other and start singing to him a little crazy song?
Or, does the demigod start off by giving commandments to god, such as 'thou shalt not abort', and then searching the scriptures to see if god has obeyed his commandments.
And now, that he feels that he has remisinterpeted scripture and now believes that god has obeyed his commandments, so he has no problem repeating his new findings as pure unadauterated truth?
Or, does he listen to the tall tales told by 'the biggest liar on t.v., journalism', Sean Hannity, Such as Hannity's lie that pres. Jimmy Carter released the Alathoya Khomani, when it was really Margaret Thacher, with the approval of Ronald Reagan, and then repeat those lies as though they were truth?
Or, does he repeat the lies of Rush, 'I'm so gay that I have to steal my buddy's viagra when I go to visit my favorite little boys in the Dominican Republic, Lumbard,
Or the lies of Michael Wenier, a.k.a. Michael Savage, because I don't want to admit I was butt buddies with Alan Ginsberg.?

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:45 PM
Mr. Santorum may have gotten some of his information from an article in The Times (UK) dated Feb.16, 1999 which says in part:

"The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent."

(20% of the patient histories studied resulted in euthanasia "without explicit consent".)

In the article, Dr Peggy Norris is quoted, "I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment."

The Times (UK) Feb.16,1999

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

According to the first official government study on the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1990: 1,040 people (an average of three per day) were actively killed by doctors without the patients’ knowledge or consent. Since then, the killing of nonconsenting adults has been on the rise and expanded to include competent people with incurable illness or disabilities, patients who are not physically ill but depressed and desire to commit suicide, and incompetent people with such illness as Alzheimer’s because “they would have asked for it if they were competent.”


The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent.


The Dutch courts and the Royal Dutch Medical Association KNMG established guidelines for physicians to follow in selecting patients for either assisted suicide or euthanasia: (1) voluntariness - patients request must be freely made, well-considered and persistent (2) unbearable suffering - patients suffering cannot be relieved by any other means, and (3) consultation - the attending physicians should consult with a colleague. If these guidelines were followed physicians would not be prosecuted. According to Dr. Herbert Hendin, American author of, "Seduced by Death", even these broad guidelines have been largely ignored, to the point were the doctors who help set euthanasia guidelines will privately admit that euthanasia in the Netherlands is basically out of control.


The world’s first mobile team to administer euthanasia in patients’ homes will be launched next month.

Units will be dispatched when family doctors refuse to administer lethal drugs on ‘ethical’ grounds.

Source.[/ur l]

This last one is from Feb. 10, 2012.

Apparently if an MD refuses on ethical grounds you can call a mobile unit to come out and kill you if you wish.

Last year a total of 2,636 Dutch people were killed by euthanasia..

This compares to 2,331 reported deaths by euthanasia in 2008, which saw a 10 per cent rise on 2007.

In 2003, the year after Holland became the first country in the world to legalise the practice since the fall of Nazi Germany, there were 1,815 reported cases.


I'm not sure where people in the Netherlands get their news, but here our politicians get their news from the same sources we do. So is Santorum lying, or as my search found, simply repeating what has been in the news many times.

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it. Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities. Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is "rational" will have their deaths facilitated. Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer's, it's all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.

And now they want to euthanize children.


This next one comes from the Daily Caller and includes a link to the paper by physicians from the Netherlands.

Prior to publishing the study results, the KNMG polled its members online. More than 68 percent agreed with the statement that doctors should be “permitted to factor in vulnerability, loss of function, confinement to bed, loneliness, humiliation and loss of dignity” when determining whether a patient is a good candidate for euthanasia.

Only 45 percent agreed that “a medically classifiable condition is a prerequisite for performing euthanasia or assisted suicide.”

Now they wish to euthanize the poor and depressed it would seem. Read the paper.

edit on 2/20/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:09 PM
This page has a link to the Position Paper.

The Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (KNMG) represents 53,000 physicians.

Contrary to what is generally assumed, the Euthanasia Law includes
provisions permitting assisted suicide for patients with psychiatric
conditions and dementia. The assessment of these groups of patients
must pay particular attention to the patients’ competence and the
considerations prompting the request. It is generally advisable to carry
out more than one consultation (multidisciplinary, where necessary).

The above is a quote from the conclusions at the end of the paper.

This should make you take notice and at least understand how this trend could be disturbing. This huge body of physicians is admitting that they have the power to euthanize the mentally ill and people with forms of dementia. One physician can make that determination and they only recommend a consultation, while it is clear it's not required.

Perhaps a bracelet is a good idea.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:16 PM
Setting aside the fact your trying to influence the vote in a country you don't live in, you seem to be somewhat oblivious to your own countries laws. That paper shows at least that the physicians in the Netherlands believe what is being said it true.

It looks to me from the large number of articles that pop up from diverse sources that Santorum is simply repeating news he thinks is true.

I can't jump on the bandwagon for euthanasia as I know that any power given a government will be abused. I can't condemn Santorum for simply repeating what he thinks is true.
edit on 2/20/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:42 PM
The euthanasia lobby in the Netherlands is pushing for prescriptions for any and all reasons to euthanize. Its a tough situation and an even tougher debate.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

LOLOLOL you got trolled by Bill O'Reilly!!!

to be honest, i wouldnt worry to much about what that pile of blubber thinks! Many Americans know how wonderful the Netherlands are/is. Nice thread though, its always good to see how unintelligent Oreilly is. I couldnt believe how oreilly tried to argue that statics are skewed due to difference in population size
Back to elementary grade math class for you blubber!

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by SergeantTrammelant

Great thread and I totally agree with you.. as fellow country man .. Lots of governments can learn from the dutch, economically and socially , well we still have our triple A status but thats because we pay high tax incomes. So in my opinion lose one A and lower our taxes.....

Oh yeah and my bracelet has signed capital BS....
edit on 21/12/2010 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Santorum tells ridiculous lies about everything. The frightening part is he is a Dominionist and as such literally feels that anything justifies his grab for power in an effort to do his view on "Gods work".

He wont get in the white house though. People enjoy seeing whackos on TV but they are not so stupid as to give nukes to them.

You vasty underestimate the stupidity and insanity of the people he panders to.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Malcher
This thread is the first time i read bout this. Did a search and went to page 10 of the results.

Found this article from 2004. Seems this comes from a book.

Doctors in the Netherlands are also renowned for withholding treatment from psychiatric patients and the elderly. It is no secret that the elderly often avoid hospitalization for fear they will be put to death. In response to this trend, thousands of Dutch people carry papers or where bracelets that say “do not euthanize me.”

There may be some truth to it.

How would we know if it was or was not true?

Do they Euthanize old people?

Oh please! I’m pretty sure any respectable journalist and or book would know how to spell wear.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by Hyaena

The same reason the liberal left "allows" Dennis Kucinich to parade around with his radical ideas, or Bernie Sanders the socialist, or Maxine Watters the Democrat liberal who said openly she wanta to socialize the oil industry. Or the Representative who said that the Island of Guam would tip over and capsize if too many people were on it. that's one of my personal favorites.
Or the same way the MSM "allows" the liberal loudmouth Ed Schultz to spew his vomit.

And oh yah, on topic, I found an article that stated that a number of elderly people in nursing homes had certificates that said not to euthanize.

As far as wearing bracelets, it could easily be true. After all, back in the 70's we had copper bracelets that were dedicated to POW's in Viet Nam. Some people wear bracelets that tell of being diabetic or whatever.

edit on 20-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:23 PM
Santorum says it's wrong to force women to have prenatal testing.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Virginia have just passed legislation forcing women to have sonograms if they want an abortion. Go figure.

Santorum doesn't want insurance companies to pay for amniocentesis because he says it leads to abortion. He has a daughter who was born with Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder with horrible symptoms. Most are dead within a year, median life span 5-15 days. A short, miserable and no doubt very expensive existence. Most parents choose to abort after detecting this in utero. Now, if he and his wife wanted to have the baby anyway, fine...

My question is who is picking up the check? Is it coming out of other people's insurance premiums? What if a woman comes in to the hospital without insurance and gives birth to a baby with a disorder like this? Then tax dollars are paying. These are babies that would die without extensive medical intervention and it's not hard to conclude that might be what "God" intended. Why is God's alleged will sacrosanct in regard to embryos but not considered with babies born with massive defects that would otherwise cause them to die?

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
A politician who lies!? My god... This is SHOCKING.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Hyaena

The same reason the liberal left "allows" Dennis Kucinich to parade around with his radical ideas, or Bernie Sanders the socialist, or Maxine Watters the Democrat liberal who said openly she wanta to socialize the oil industry.

Get back to us if or when Kucinich, Waters or Sanders are leading any national polls of likely Democratic primary voters.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by DelMarvel

The point of all that is it borders on something people in the 40's found abhorrent.....what is different today that we accept this as normal procedure?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in