Perhaps, but some believe that Soros money is funding the death industry. I ask how? Yes, Soros believes in assisted suicide, but at the same time he seems to have put his money where his mouth is and has significantly funded efforts at comfort and better care, both here in the US and internationally. Nor do I see this mystical death industry with a goal of simply killing off as many people as possible, having the influence some here feels it has with the judges, congress, etc.
I hear what you are saying, but the Soros gang is going about this in the paradigm shifting mode, and have been for some time. The earthlink/joyinlife expose is the scariest, because those who believe in this, going back years, saw this as the way to enact institutional change. The public information dissemination is the last stage of three, and we are here now. Terri is at the end.
Hillary said in 1993 that she effectively endorsed euthanasia in her remarks for those "not terminal." Clinton's hospice legislation of 2000 enabled people not exactly terminal at the end of 6 months to go into hospice care. "The fact that individual beneficiaries may live well beyond six months does not indicate overuse or abuse." http://www.painlaw.org/accesstohospice.html
The point is that now, now the removal of the key provisions by fiat that may have reflected well on the origins reveal themselves as the agenda unfolds in its true purpose: when the agenda, and the acceptance of it, is striving to portray itself on the ascendant. Witness such out of this world things as an open endorsement by Hollywood, the national press, the courts and even some here. Everyone says, "Well, I wouldn't want to live that way." I supposed that's fine, until "that way" gets trimmed here, and here, and here, and here. This isn't just a slippery slope; nor is it post hoc ergo propter hoc or a hasty generalization. I am not even willing anymore to say that it is all right for someone to say in the PC parlance, "OK. Sure. Go ahead. Whatever." It's not OK.
I have to get back to Mae now.
Has anyone watched Soylent Green recently? The praise of Soros reminds me of the end of the movie when the older man goes to 'die' (be killed). As he is put to death, he gets to listen to beautiful music and see beautiful nature scenes.
Does making the surroundings nicer, make killing better? If HOSPICE wants to keep their good name, they need to condemn the practice of admitting people to be starved and dehydrated to death.
P.S.
Hitler was kind to children and dogs.
Does that give Hitler the license to have been responsible for killing an estimated 40 million people, including the disabled, holocaust and the wars??
See my point?
How is Soros funding the death industry?
He is funding hospices which are supposed to give loving care to
the terminal, and to get into most hospices the "terminal" label
means in imminent (weeks) confrontatioin with death.
Here, within a month, we find that doctors, donors, family members
are helping people to become terminal, fraudulently admitting them to hospices with the purpose of promoting death.
Soros' quotes elsewhere on this thread about his father's and mother's deaths are very telling. We have also learned that there are many doctors in the pro death movement. Take a patient with severe medical/mental problems, admit them to a hospice, cut the nutrition and hydration, and .....Voila! a terminal patient.
The meds and deprivation are obviously keeping Mae from being coherent. Looks like a huge blossoming court case to me.
Still---a huge donation to a "caring, sustaining" organization is chalked up for Soros.
He, Ted Turner and many celebrities and world luminaries belong to various world organizations that believe the planet's only hope of survival is to halve the population--or better. Ted Turner is on record as believing that 90,000,000 would be a good world population. How many billions would that eliminate?
vaudine