By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
I'm guessing these are the same experts you're gonna get to talk to about your personal health care pretty soon.
All morning long, I kept getting the same email, with the same link, over and over again.
Nearly every one of the minions who take The Wall Street Journal online, knowing that I enjoy James Taranto's ongoing taunt of the New York Times and their star columnist Paul Krugman, felt compelled to give me a heads up on this morning's Best of the Web column at WSJ.com.
As though I hadn't already been up and skulking my favorite sites for hours.
I suppose it would be ungracious (ingracious?) one of those for sure ... maybe both, not to thank each and every one of you for thinking about our site.
And because it seems very important to you that we spread the word on this issue, and more importantly, because I was going to do it anyway, here we go.
Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
First the bad news. "The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet 'even the most basic standards of care' for the over-65s," ...
Now the good news: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false," according to Paul Krugman, star columnist at the New York Times.
Oops, but there's more bad news: The New York Times has been known to publish out-and-out falsehoods on its opinion pages, including under Krugman's byline.
Good news: This could be one of those instances in which he's telling the truth. Bad news: We wouldn't bet on it.
Now the full story.
As always, the photo links to the entire peice.
A study of pensioners who suffered appalling treatment at the hands of doctors and nurses say that half were not given enough to eat or drink. One family member said the maltreatment amounted to "euthanasia".
Some were left unwashed or in soiled clothes, while others were forgotten after being sent home or given the wrong medication.
In several cases considered by the Health Service Ombudsman, patients died without loved ones by their sides because of the “casual indifference” of staff and their “bewildering disregard” for people’s needs.
The damning report warns that extra money will not help the NHS meet required standards of care and that more problems are likely as the population ages.
Ann Abraham, who as health ombudsman carries out independent investigation of complaints against the health service, said: “The findings of my investigations reveal an attitude – both personal and institutional – which fails to recognise the humanity and individuality of the people concerned and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism.
But no death panels.
Having recently accused of being Republicans, what a mean spirited and hateful thing to say, we almost paused on this post.
But no, hurl whatever disparaging epithet you will, we will not shrink from our purpose.
Whatever the hell that may be.
Did we mention former professor of constitutional law?
That's OK I guess ..... no one believed me anyway.
I have a question:
How does all this massive amount of legislation, hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of pages, which common sense tells us takes months if not years to draft, magically appear overnight right after a crisis, like the Patriot Acts, Obamacare, and the new onerous financial regulations?
Gosh, a skeptic would think that such is crafted well ahead of time behind the scene.
Plus, no politician has or takes the time to read all this legislation.
The politicians blindly just vote.
Is it like the sheeple are being deliberated herded toward the slaughter works, a place that is clearly contrary to their own best interest long-term?
The Gaia, Mother Earth, New Age, collectivist philosophy of the ruling elite is that “humanity is dandruff that needs to be cleansed from the scalp of Mother Earth.”
The masses in Euroland, the US, the UK, Japan and China are starting to seriously question the legitimacy of their political leadership.
Such historically has preceded an economic and politically distracting war.
Historically, mankind gets into trouble when it buys into the earth-based collectivist philosophy as opposed to the Creator-based individualistic philosophy.
So, love your real mother this Mother’s Day!
The Powers That Be (PTB) are fast running out of slick rhetoric, empty promises, zero interest rates, and endless bailouts for their cronies.
Our concern should be that next comes inflation, more tyrannical controls, loss of freedom, and war.
Desperate men, addicted to power, do desperate things.
But it's only about 4 minutes.
A quick and light damnation of the Mitt Romney candidacy.
He was probably brainwashed.
This bit of fun is brought to you by Doctor, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican from Oklahoma.
The idea here being that since Democrats, having boxed themselves in by virtue of the tactics they employed to pass their Obamacare legislation, now were forced to go on the record in the Senate and vote against an unlimited number of Republican amendments.
Then defend that record in the fall.
Among those amendments Democrats rejected:
No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders
This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs.
A 2005 survey found that some 800 convicted sex offenders had received Medicaid-funded impotence drugs.
Congress Should Not Lecture Americans About Fiscal Responsibility
This amendment would strike the creation of a new $375 million government program the new health bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) intended to promote personal and financial responsibility. It is ironic that Congress, that amassed a $12 trillion deficit, should lecture Americans about financial responsibility. This government “responsibility” program duplicates existing government programs and adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the tax burden funds. In short, there is nothing responsible about the new responsibility program.
If You Like the Health Plan You Have, You Can Keep It
President Obama promised that Americans who like their health care plan would be able to keep it. However, the Congressional Budget Office has said that millions of people will lose their current coverage under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, for many Americans, the reconciliation bill is even worse news, as it made changes to some grandfathering provisions. The changes to grandfathering provisions would mean that individuals with guaranteed renewable plans in the individual market will NOT be able to keep their current coverage at the current price, but would immediately be issued a new policy and charged more. This amendment strikes changes to grandfathered plans, so Americans who like the health care they have actually can keep it.
Implement Republican Ideas President Obama Has Endorsed To Crack Down on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
(Amendment 3560) -
The President’s Proposal for health reform, released on February 22, 2010, highlighted nine Republican ideas to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment includes each of those policy provisions which have been endorsed by President Obama. Certainly Washington politicians should be serious about stemming the hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Senators will have an opportunity to vote on proposals which have received bipartisan support, and which the President has endorsed.
Abortion Conscience Amendment
This amendment would ensure health care providers are not forced to participate in abortions or discriminated against because they choose not to perform abortions. The federal government should never require health care providers to violate their deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs or discriminate against them because they choose to exercise their consciences and not be involved with abortion. This amendment would protect health care providers from being required or coerced to perform abortions.
Exempt Class I Medical Devices from New Taxation.
Taxing latex gloves and band-aids is not health reform and only increases the cost of health care for patients. This amendment would exempt all Class I medical devices – such as band-aids, wheelchairs, hospital beds, and surgical gowns – from new federal taxation.
Highly Qualified Bureaucrats in the Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid
As the U.S. Department of Education prepares to become one of the world’s largest banks, this amendment holds government bureaucrats to the same high standards applied to U.S. teachers by requiring each employee within the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid to become “Highly Qualified” in fiscal management.
This amendment requires each employee within the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid to become “Highly Qualified” in fiscal management by earning a bachelor’s degree in finance or business management/administration within six years of the date of enactment.
Prohibits Members of Congress from receiving a pay increase until the budget is balanced
This amendment freezes the pay of Members of Congress until they balance the U.S. government’s budget. Members of Congress are paid an annual salary of $174,000 and, under a law passed by Congress, that amount is automatically increased every year. This amendment would block this automatic congressional pay raise until Congress stops borrowing money to pay for its excessive spending.
For the complete list of Senator Coburn's ammendments, click below.
The complete list of amendments offered and rejected by House Democrats can be found here.
It's long, but worthy of some fast scrolling.
Headlines akin to this one are appearing all over the country.
State's Rights is back.
It's gonna be ugly.
Bouchard: Halt state payments to federal government
By Chad Selweski, Macomb Daily Staff Writer
Candidate for Governor says health overhaul holds states hostage, but two can play that game.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Bouchard said Wednesday that, as governor, he would withhold federal tax revenues generated in Michigan to force the federal government to abandon health care reform within the state.
Bouchard, the Oakland County sheriff, said federal enforcement officials have previously held back funding for Michigan's child support enforcement system until the state surrendered residents' Social Security numbers. The federal government has also tied federal highway funding to strict seat belt laws and highway speed limits.
"They hold us hostage to get our own money back. We're going to play that in reverse. We're going to stop sending money to Washington in the first place," said Bouchard. "They're withholding our tax dollars until we comply with their policy directives, so why can't it work in the opposite direction?"
By foisting ObamaCare on a deeply unwilling country he might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era, which, if it plays its cards right, could undo his legislation and his legacy. . . .
By some estimates, Uncle Sam will need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents or so just to enforce the coverage mandate. But even if a few million Americans simultaneously refuse to abide by it [or pay the fine], they could easily overwhelm the system. Self-rule or swaraj, Gandhi said, requires a collective understanding of the immense capacity of citizens to "regulate and control" the coercive apparatus of the state through mass nonviolent resistance.
President Obama and his fellow Democrats are counting on this resistance petering out. That could happen. But it will be a lot easier for opponents to maintain this zeal in the age of social networking. . . . After all, this issue is not just about the fate of an industry. It is about maintaining control over basic decisions about one's own life and health.
Ok, in the first chart below, we see the ratio of workers to beneficiaries go from 41.9 to 3.3.
Then, in the table further below, we see the tax rate move from 2% to 15.3%.
How is this possible ?????
Life Expectancy (Years)
Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1000 births)
Physicians per 1000 People
Nurses per 1000 People
Health Care Spending, % of GDP
Gov't. Health Spending Per Capita ( $ )
Top Personal Income Tax Rate ( % )
Top Corporate Income Tax Rate ( % )
THE PRESIDENT:"...Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care
DAVID LEONHARDT: Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.
THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
DAVID LEONHARDT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
"Right now, insurance companies are rationing care. They are basically telling you what's covered and what's not. They're telling you, 'We'll cover this drug but we won't cover that drug. You can have this procedure or you can't have that procedure. So why is it that people would prefer having insurance companies make those decisions rather than medical experts and doctors figuring out, you know, what are good deals for care and providing that information to you as a consumer and your doctor so you can make good decisions?"
"The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore, "I am not in favor of that."