Ezekiel Emanuel Article: Deny Medical Care to Alzheimer's Patients

IsraPundit ^ | 8/12/09 | Bill Levinson

[Winged Hussar]

We previously compared Obamacare to the German Aktion T4, in which "life unworthy of living" was to be eliminated through denial of medical care or even palliatives such as Zyklon B. In fairness to the health care bill HR 3200, of which we downloaded a complete copy, the section on end of life counseling does not mandate or even encourage euthanasia. ...However, Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother, with close ties to Barack Obama) is on written record as advocating denial of "discretionary" medical care to patients with dementia such as Alzheimer's Disease: a position entirely consistent with Germany's Aktion T4 health care plan. The Hastings Center Report in question also talks about "communitarianism," and the Communitarians are on record as advocating practices that all responsible hunters and firearm owners would define as slob hunting and vicious cruelty to animals.

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

[B-Cause]

Death of Democracy in America

---

Watch This Short Video Clip!

Click Here

to watch this video on the death of Democracy in America

---

ObamaCare and the death of Democracy in America


We want Sarah!
Run Sarah Run!!

[Heart of Georgia]

Will zeke emanuel be the czar over obamacare? If so, he will be the head of the death panel and will certainly implement all of his evil beliefs.

[the invisib1e hand]

I've been jumping around on this topic this am, doing a little reseach. Somewhere, I cannot remember where (and I retraced me steps as best I could) somebody posted this (paraphrase):

They don't even feel the elderly are worthy of the right to choose suicide; they want to make that decision for them

That was a thought-provoking point to me, and later in my hopping around I came across this:

One such theorist, Adolf Jost, issued an early call for direct medical killing in a book published in 1895 and significantly entitled “The Right to Death” (Das Recht auf den Tod). Jost argued that control over the death of the individual must ultimately belong to the social organism, the state. This concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American tradition of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual’s “right to die” or “right to death” or “right to his or her own death,” as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state’s right to kill. While he spoke of compassion and relief of suffering of the incurably ill, his focus was mainly on the health of the Volk and the state. He pointed out that the state already exercises those “rights” in war, where thousands of individuals are sacrificed for the good of the state. Ultimately the argument was biological: “The rights to death [are] the key to the fitness of life.” The state must own death — must kill — in order to keep the social organism alive and healthy.²*

from here:http://www.mazal.org/Lifton/LiftonT046.htm

So, whatever you do, don't call the Obama administration Nazi, even though it's plagiurizing the Nazi Manual.

[sweetiepiezer]

See you have been doing some research, I am in a discussion with a liberal and cannot find who said that a child is not a person until 2 years of age, was it Dr. Emanuel or was it the Science Czar Holdren?
Thanks.

[nanetteclaret]

It’s Peter Singer. He believes that a baby can be “aborted” up to the age of about two years old simply because it cannot reason until then. Lots of info on him out there.

[facedown]

Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’

[sweetiepiezer]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[sweetiepiezer]

Thank you, check out post #26 also.
This is what I found on Singer. Is he one of the czars, if not, what position does he hold in this administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

n his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a “human” or “alive” at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer lecturing on medical ethics.

Singer’s argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life.[27]

[the invisib1e hand]

See you have been doing some research, I am in a discussion with a liberal and cannot find who said that a child is not a person until 2 years of age, was it Dr. Emanuel or was it the Science Czar Holdren? Thanks.

Thanks, as I really haven't been doing that much research. Just glances at Emanuel's paper for the NIH in which the Complete Lives System is described.

There is such a thing as "scarce medical care": for example, ten people need a heart, 3 are available. This is a matter that cannot be ignored.

The danger is that the framework of "allocating scarce resources" will be transposed across the board, once government completely f)cks up the market allocation of all medical resources, which currently are not scarce, but surely will be once the elephant stomps into the marketplace.

That possibility, FRiends, is fearsome indeed.