– “The care of the sick and elderly has become unsustainable, it is too expensive for the state coffers. Not to mention disabled children who represent only a burden and will never turn into productive elements of society. If families have the means to assist them privately they could become a source of income for pharmaceutical and health companies, doctors and private clinics, but those on the social system will have to be eliminated before they become adults. “
– “Yes, but we cannot state it so explicitly, someone could find it inconvenient, we would even risk social turmoil.”
-“Obviously! We need to find the appropriate terminology to make this solution sound appealing, with sugar-coated expressions like “sweet death” “mercy killing” or “the right to die with dignity”
– “Mercy Killing” – “Dying with dignity” I like that!”
– “The important thing is to convince public opinion that dying is in the best interest of the disabled person. The question that everyone has to ask is: why extend their existence further since there is no possibility that they will return to an autonomous and “worthwhile” life? We will provide the answer and it will be soon taken for granted by everyone.
Doctors must be appropriately trained, they must first be convinced in order to be able to convince the families by stating that their loved ones suffer, that the quality of their existence is too poor and that allowing them to “die with dignity” is the best way to show them love. The more doctors are persuaded to do the right thing, the more they can be persuasive. “
– “And what if some family members were to insist on refusing euthanasia or -” sweet death “? “
– “If a relative disputes the opinion of the doctors, the judges must intervene to authorize the withdrawal of vital support and start the end of life protocol. It is important that the sentence always states that the decision is taken in the “best interest” of the disabled person. Rebellious families will then have to be isolated and a denigratory campaign must be started against them, including threatening lawsuits against them and their supporters. It will discourage others from following their example.”
– “It will not be easy, however, to convince all parents that killing their own creature is the best solution”
– “Allowing your child to” die with dignity “should be presented as the most noble form of parental love, whoever adapts will be praised and brought as a virtuous example, whoever opposes it will be portrayed as immoral and selfish.”
-“Great! This solution will also be appreciated by those who do not want to take care of disabled relatives, we provide a noble excuse to have them suppressed. We will overthrow the axiom and inculcate in people’s minds that those who love their dear ones do not fight for their life but for their death. After all, it is so easy to manipulate public opinion! “
– “To succeed we need the collaboration of the press. Please convene the directors of the major national newspapers and foreign ones serving our cause. There must be no dissenting voice. I would suggest creating false profiles that positively comment on articles in order to promote the homologation of collective thought “
Aldous Huxley in his dystopic novel “Brave New World” describes a society in which eugenics and euthanasia are practiced and considered ‘progressive’ innovations. But this is not a prophetic book, in fact this theory was already acknowledged at the time in the British establishment and was then imposed on the world after World War II with the emergence of the Anglo-Saxon cultural hegemony.
“Brave New World” published in 1932, and the equally famous “1984” by George Orwell, who had been Huxley’s student, published in 1949, depict a society which is strangely and incredibly similar to the present one . However, these novels are not the result of fervid imagination but represent an action program conceived in those years of which both were aware of, being well introduced in the freemasonry environment and perfectly informed about what was being planned in the most exclusive and inaccessible circles of European and international politics.
“Brave New World” shows a world where promiscuity, free sex without love, systematic contraception, legal abortion, early sexual education, artificial insemination, demographic planning, cultural struggle against the monogamous family, euthanasia, free drugs are accepted without question.
Huxley, a member of powerful occult and masonic lodges, illustrated in “Brave New World” – under the disguise of a sci-fi dystopia – a large part of the cultural, social and “political” program of the international freemasonry elite: a program which was duly implemented in the following decades, with the results we see today (whatever our moral evaluation of it may be).
In fact, although public opinion is kept in the dark, the funding and connivance of the international politics and finance elites in order to introduce and enhance the epochal cultural changes which started to take place in the 60s-70s, but were carefully planned in previous decades, are in fact known to scholars.
Therefore, the legalization of euthanasia as a conscious project to eliminate useless and unproductive individuals does not appear to be “science-fiction” at all.
In England this program started years ago with the compliance of the press and the silence of human rights associations and it was only thanks to the firm resistance on behalf of the young and brave parents of Alfie Evans that this system, already in place, came forth on the international scene.
Alfie’s story, the way in which his “execution” was decided by a judge against the parents’ will, the assumption that he was terminally ill in the absence of a diagnosis, holding him in the hospital and ignoring the parents’ rights to have the child transferred to another hospital ready to welcome and treat him, the refusal to revise the sentence even after the unexpected survival of the child, the denial to administer food and hydration for almost 30 hours, have shocked and outraged public opinion all over the world. But what has dismayed foreigners even more was the reaction of most British citizens who seemed to find these methods absolutely normal and even desirable.
Mario Adinolfi, director of La Croce newspaper, wrote.
“We are witnessing a sentence that is nothing short of surreal. The motivation that led to the rejection of the parents’ appeal lies in the fact that Alfie cannot be sent to Italy because it would be too risky for him. That’s why they prefer to suffocate and starve him to death in the Liverpool hospital. If this were not a tragedy, we would have to laugh. What scares me is the irrational dimension of this sentence that many do not seem to detect. If the judges were to tell the truth they should admit that Alfie, like Charlie Gard and Isaiah, must die for a reason of cost control because British healthcare system has decided to limit the expenses of assistance to the most vulnerable subjects”.
Authorizing his transfer to Italy would have made clear the real monetary reason for killing him, while they had to uphold the claim that dying was in the best interest of the child, that their intent was humanitarian and not criminal.
Alfie is not the only one and certainly not the first of the innocents sacrificed by the British healthcare, legal and political systems. Before him, hundreds of children died from deprivation of food, hydration and ventilation, and with the aid of lethal sedatives although euthanasia is officially banned in England.
A few months earlier, in the same city of Liverpool, little Katie Roy, diagnosed with Edwards syndrome, was suspended all treatments and vital supports.
Her mother says:
“Kaila needed heart surgery to continue living, but both the Liverpool Women’s Hospital and the Alder Hey Hospital refused to intervene. We were transferred to a hospice in Liverpool. They told us that Kaila would have died peacefully in her sleep after a few days. Instead she died three weeks after the removal of life support, March 19. She was five weeks old.
We had never heard of Edwards syndrome before and we trusted the doctors when they told us that Kaila would live only a few days. Instead she lived for 5 weeks and if they had given her surgery, she could have lived years, but we discovered it later, then we did not know it. Kaila was awake and was aware of these tremendous palliative treatments until the end. She shouted and cried for hunger all the time. She did not calm down. It was the worst way of dying I have ever seen. My baby was left without nutrition or hydration for three weeks and Midazolam (a powerful sedative) was prescribed and administered twice during these three weeks. Alfie’s story helped me and led me to change the way we look at palliative care from how it is practiced today in Britain. In any case, if I had a better knowledge of Edwards syndrome I would have fought against doctors. No child should be made to suffer in this way. The way my daughter Kaila died could be avoided. We need everyone to stand up and talk about what is happening. I want to start with a petition on Kailas Law, to ban the starvation palliative care in the UK. “
So, starvation is called “palliative care” in the UK!
The Italian Catholic media who rejoiced because the little Alfie had been restored to hydration, finding in this concession the demonstration that the British system recognizes that vital supports cannot be considered therapeutic obstinacy, are wrong and have not understood that this grace has been granted only because of the international media clamor aroused by the strenuous battle carried out by parents and supporters of Alfie’s army. Numerous other cases show instead that the privileged method for administering “sweet death” to disabled or incurable patients in England is precisely the withdrawal of life supports.
In 2014, a disabled child named Nancy Wise, who was neither terminally ill, nor in a coma, nor dependent on mechanical ventilation to breathe, was legally murdered in a London hospital, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (GOSH).
The news was not even reported by the Italian mainstream newspapers while the English ones praised her mother, Charlotte Fitzmaurice, for her courageous choice of asking the High Court judges for the authorization to “put an end to the suffering” of her daughter, who had a severe disability.
This was the wording used by the official English press: “Devoted mother Charlotte Fitzmaurice bravely asked a High Court judge to win for 12-year-old daughter Nancy the right to put an end to her suffering. Nancy could not walk, talk, eat or drink. Her quality of life was so poor she needed 24-hour care and was fed, watered and medicated by tube.”
The British media published the reasons that had convinced the judge, Justice Eleanor King (coincidentally the same who 4 years later rejected the appeal of Alfie Evans’s parents) to authorize the euthanasia of the child: ““She wasn’t my angelic child any more, she was a shell.” said the mother “I wanted beautiful memories of Nancy, not soul-crushing ones.” Nor did it matter that her father had added, “Nancy never spoke, so we could not know how she really felt.”
Nancy’s conditions were actually due to two serious medical errors.
At birth she suffered from hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicemia, due to a banal Group B Streptococcus infection contracted by the mother during pregnancy, which could have been treated with a simple antibiotic but which had not been diagnosed. Two days before giving birth in July 2002, Charlotte was told her daughter was likely to be severely ill. If caught early the condition is easily treatable in the womb with antibiotics, but the mother-to-be was told that as it had gone untreated, it would harm her unborn child.
(Of course, In Italy there would have been a massive media coverage to rouse public outcry against the hospital while in England nobody spoke about it nor did the parents file a law suit ).
But Nancy’s health deteriorated considerably years later, when she contracted a severe infection following a routine operation for the removal of kidney stones. Not only did the parents not sue the hospital but they did not even reveal in which hospital the operation had taken place, even if it was supposed to be GOSH. According to the at Great Ormond Street doctors, her infection could not be treated and the morphine and painkillers had no longer any effect.
The mother then turned to the High Court, and Judge Justice King stated in the sentence that “the love, devotion and competence of this mother are evident,” adding “great admiration” and “deep condolences” for her courageous choice. The hearing took place, as in other cases, behind closed doors and there was no representative of the disabled associations to defend the child’s interests.
Disabled activist Dennis Queen, herself a parent of three disabled children, said: “I am horrified that in any legal case where a child’s life is in the balance there would be no representation for the child and nobody advocating for their interests and what they want.
Nancy was left without nourishment and without hydration for 12 long agonizing days in which, according to the nurses, she suffered horribly and died on 21 August 2014.
Charlotte, Nancy’s mother, later told the press that her daughter’s death shows that parents and doctors can agree to end a child’s life without even asking for a judge’s opinion.
Nancy’s case comes five years after the High Court approved the death of little Ronnie Bickell, born with a genetic condition that made his muscles useless. Ronnie was supported by mechanical ventilation and could not communicate but could hear and see.
After months of treatment, the hospital asked to turn off life support, leaving Ronnie’s mother and father on opposite sides of a bitter legal battle.
The father asked that his son be given a tracheotomy that would make it easier for him ì to breathe and receive care at home. Kelly Bickell, Ronnie’s mother, claimed that her son’s quality of life was so poor that it was better to let him die. She was supported by the doctors at the hospital where her son was hospitalized, who recommended that the assisted ventilation machine be switched off.
In November 2009 a High Court judge established, in agreement with her mother Kelly, that Ronnie’s quality of life was not sufficient to justify medical treatment. Ronnie was 13 months old when his life support machine was turned off.
We must be aware of the fact that there are people who are convinced in good faith that in case of “more or less serious” impairments, death is the best solution and has to be dutifully imparted, even against the will of family members and of the disabled themselves.
Yet, if the story of little Alfie Evans had occurred in a totalitarian regime, those same people would have screamed in horror and would have protested vehemently along with associations, NGOs and human rights activists. But having taken place in the “civilized” England the legitimate indignation is mitigated and turns into doubt that, after all, maybe the right thing has been done. In order to manipulate the masses and influence public opinion, it is fundamental to confer credibility and a good reputation to those who are designed to carry out the most loathsome choices and decisions.
It seems that the international elite in power has decided long ago which country should pave the way to make the Orwellian and Huxellian nightmares, we are throwing ourselves into with joyous and oblivious indifference, come true.
When Orwell finished his novel, “1984”, he sent it to Huxley who approved its contents but not the method. He wrote to him: “You describe a world in which the oppression of the people is obtained through fear, as happens in totalitarian regimes, but this type of government never lasts long. Instead in mine, the dominant oligarchy finds more effective methods to satisfy their lust for power, without flogging or torture. In fact, the conditioning of the masses consists in making people love their slavery.”
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executives, political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”
IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL
Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die – but what if the right becomes an obligation??? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs???
It is often overlooked that patients in all European countries have the common law right to refuse any medical treatment. A doctor who treats a patient against his or her express wishes can be charged with assault. It would be wise to educate people as to their right to refuse treatment. There is no need to convert this well established legal principle into legislation.
A recent Dutch government investigation of euthanasia, which is legal in the Netherlands, has come up with some disturbing findings. In 1990, 1,030 Dutch patients were killed WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And of 22,500 deaths due to withdrawal of life support, 63% (14,175 patients) were denied medical treatment WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Twelve per-cent (1,701 patients) were mentally competent but were NOT CONSULTED.
The Dutch experience seems to demonstrate that the “right to die” can soon turn into an obligation.
If voluntary euthanasia is made legal for “persons of sound mind” there will inevitably be tremendous pressure to provide it for those who “would request it if they were able to” – the mentally ill or handicapped, the senile, etc.
Finally, despite genuine compassion for the suffering of dying people, does there not also lurk in many hearts a less admirable motive? Few people are so tasteless as to link euthanasia and health care costs in the same breath, but there is a widespread few that medical care for the elderly costs more than we can afford. These financial pressures will multiply in the coming years as our population ages.
Keep informed about the issue of euthanasia and make your views known to politicians and the media.
Your actions can help shape the way you and your loved ones will be treated in your last days.