Originally posted by Unity_99
This is the most sickening thing I have ever read.
How is it legal. I am reading a CRIME. WITH MURDER. All named need to be in prison. All ministers in prison. Unless you believe in the death penalty.
MURDER the terminally ill. So you have cancer and must be tortured to death without fluids on top of what you're going through??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!!!!!
And notice aside from the children, that they said, terminally ill AND elderly patients. OH, so you can decide, he's old, so lets deprive fluids. He's terminally ill, so lets deprive fluids. That baby is handicapped, so lets deprive fluids. You can legally sign papers to murder someone?????
That is not HEALTH CARE.
THAT IS MURDER.
I WANT THEM IN PRISON NOW!!!!
Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown
this is totally F'd up. I thought when the obama care debate was happening all the 'death panel' talk was extremist rhetoric.
I don't know if we have this in Australia, we have free health care as well.. but good mix of private and public imho. And its called the 'Liverpool Care Pathway / Death pathway' ?? THIS IS INSANE! WTF ! Sure most of the people are severely disabled or dying anyway... but let them die painlessly..... THROUGH DEHYDRATION AND STARVATION? That has got to be one of the worst ways to go.. I'd rather be shot.
This is absolutely absurd.. I used to think the NHS was one of the best things about the UK.
A death pathway. And cash bonuses for meeting 'targets' ? IE if they put a certain amount of people on a death pathway each year they get a funding boost.. And they question if the bonus has led to it being abused? This is ludicrous.. there should be a riot... you guys rioted over some crap a year or so ago but let this go?
I'm speechless. I don't think i've ever read of any so abhorrent happening openly in the west in recent times.
EDIT: It is used in Australia. ARGH!
link www.healthnetworks.health.wa.gov.au...edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)
Heres another news story..
This is totally F'ked up.
on the wiki it says it is used on 'those deemed to be dying' ... in legal speak 'deemed' means that the person doesn't have to be literally dying, but will be considered to be dying at the discretion of the decision maker.
Does anyone know if this is codified by parliment? or is it act of the executive?edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)
THIS IS DISGUSTING!!!!!!
THEY HAVE 'TESTIMONIALS' : www.liv.ac.uk...
'health care professionals' handbook: www.liv.ac.uk... .pdf
"Practitioners are free to exercise
personal judgment, but any alteration
to the LCP must be documented as
a variance. For example, it is possible
for patients to be entered onto the
LCP if a decision has been made to
ﬂuids. Relatives frequently express
concern about a lack of ﬂuid intake, but
a blanket policy banning or promoting
intravenous/subcutaneous hydration is
questionable. However, administering
ﬂuids by these means may constitute an
unnecessary burden, particularly in the
last few days of life. Regular assessment
of this intervention is advised (National
Council for Palliative Care, 2005a,b)"edit on 21-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)
The Terri Schiavo case (pron.: /ˈʃaɪvoʊ/) was a legal struggle involving prolonged life support in the United States that lasted from 1998 to 2005. At issue was whether to carry out the decision of the husband of Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo to terminate life support for her. Terri was diagnosed by doctors as being in a persistent vegetative state. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents and by state and federal legislative intervention effected a seven-year delay before life support finally was terminated.
Originally posted by nomnom
reply to post by Unity_99
My mother has Canadian investors. She told me how one remarked of the horrible health care in Canada, which is mandatory and sucks up a decent chunk of the taxes. This guy refused to send his elderly mother to a regular hospital, and opted to spend a lot of money on a good private hospital. He's convinced that, had he gone with the government's public healthcare, she would not be here today. I think he was trying to say the public policy wouldn't cover whatever procedure she needed.
Originally posted by Gwampo
"when the spartan babies were born, soldiers came to the house and examined it carefully to determine its strength."
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
This is hypocrisy at its finest. They won't euthanize these babies in a humane and caring manner, but they'll withhold food and water, which takes way too long to kill them. Either way, the end result is the same. Why not own up to the practice of euthanasia, and do it quickly?