Posted on 09/18/2008 8:30:30 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.
Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as "immoral" and "barbaric", but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters.
Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain's leading moral philosopher, chaired a landmark Government committee in the 1980s that established the law on fertility treatment and embryo research.
A prominent supporter of euthanasia, she has previously suggested that pensioners who do not want to become a burden on their carers should be helped to die.
Last year the Mental Capacity Act came into effect that gives legal force to "living wills", so patients can appoint an "attorney" to tell doctors when their hospital food and water should be removed.
But in her latest interview, given to the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work, Lady Warnock goes further by claiming that dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
You first Baroness.
An old lady or an old man with an AK 47 hunting down people who support this nonsense could probe their worth in a moment or two, don’t you think?
The Nazis called it “Lebensunwertes Leben”, or “Life Unworthy of Life”, and it was one on the intellectual underpinnings of the Holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
NAZI-STYLE EUGENICS....
People who long for Socialized Healthcare should be careful of what they wish for.
They may just get it.
The jump in ethics starts whenever the concept of "health" and "medicine" stops being an ethic of individuals, as it had been for 2400 years in the Hypocratic/Christian ethic, and is transferred to the health of society.
If health applies to an individual, then medicine is used to treat a sick patient and make them healthy. If the health of society is the goal, then medicine can be denied to the individual, or to even make them sicker or die, in order to make the society healthier.
These are naturally very different outcomes, one good and one evil, but it is accomplished with only a slight adjustment to one's ethics, so slight most people don't notice.
The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation. History proved Ehrlich wrong, as the mass starvations predicted for the 1970s and 1980s never occurred.
And the love of many continues to grow cold.
Many people are mis-diagnosed with dementia, when it really is because they are highly deficient in B vitamins, particularly B-12. People deficient in these vitamins often mimic many symptoms of dementia, but they do not actually have dementia.
She added, “And those that are healthy, we can butcher up and eat.”
Remember, soylent green is people.
She must have been fun at school. "No running in the halls...or we put you down! No talking...or we put you down!"
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that we want the government to take care of the genuinely incapacitated who cannot take care of themselves. Liberals want to euthanize them and spend the money on able-bodied people who can but prefer not to work.
She has done incalculable damage to Britain's prospects for survival as a civilized society which protects and cherishes human life. Barbarism awaits.
Hmmm...
My beloved husband, who has supported me and helped me raise my four children, suddenly now is afflicted with Parkinson’s.
In spite of our marriage of 42 years, I should now consider “putting him down”, because he can no longer navigate an armless chair on a carpet in a restaurant?
Maybe he can’t manage to transplant my overgrown lilac bush? Maybe he has decided not to drive any longer, or needs to use a 4-pronged cane so he won’t fall when walking?
So, at what point is he of no use to society any more? When he can no longer pay the bills? Earn a living with his mind?
Please tell me at what point in the long slippery slope into the twilight of our lives does he become a burden? When do I, for that matter?
Should the two of us just go out this winter, lie down in the snow, and go gracefully into a frozen sleep? How do we explain this choice to our grandchildren? (think about that very carefully)
Talk about the culture of death!
This is quite a different thing from that individual voluntarily granting others the right to make a decision on his or her behalf. I would hope that a competent moral philosopher would not be confused by the difference but frankly I don't see that here. Perhaps the lady was misquoted. Or confused. Or simply beyond her ability to contribute...but then we see where that leads. Don't we?
Dr. Peter Singer, call your office!
She reminds me of the leaders of Islamic terrorism who urge their followers to commit suicide bombings but don’t do it themselves or allow their children to do it.
Despicable. And the natural landing place of the Culture of Death that permits killing of the innocent, the unborn.
To the knacker for the old horseface...
Founder of Planned Parenthood
In Her Own Words:
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc.
-- Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-- Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On eradicating 'bad stocks': The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.