"By 1929, the number of psychiatric patients in all levels of care had almost doubled from the years immediately following World War I. Economic considerations were exacerbated by the Depression beginning in 1929, and inpatient populations grew rapidly as many families of previously deinstitutionalized persons, no longer able to support them, returned them to private and state-run facilities. It was at this point that the seeds of genocide were sown among professionals and ordinary German citizens alike. The juxtaposition of severe economic constraints, crowded asylums, the attachment of levels of economic viability to human worth, and the sense that people with disabilities formed a burdensome and often criminal element in society all significantly added fuel to ethical debates concerning euthanasia and sterilization. By the late 1930s, there was open discussion among many asylum administrators about actually killing inmates.
Euthanasia and Voluntariness
Historically, euthanasia has meant a voluntary request for death without suffering by the patient. However, in the 17th century its meaning was modified to grant the right to alleviate suffering exclusively to physicians. While the meaning and implications of euthanasia changed somewhat over time, it was universally accepted that the act of euthanasia was always voluntary. That is, when individuals exercised their right to voluntarily choose the timing and the manner of their death as a means of ending their suffering, it was a physician's responsibility to assist them. However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany, came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary "right to die" was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second, the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia; that is, the economic burden that terminal illness or caring for the insane placed on families, caregivers, and the community was a factor to consider in decisions for euthanasia. In one sense, therefore, the debate quickly shifted from the idea of a "gentle death" itself to who would request or abet the patient's demise. Subsequent branches of the debate took up the notion of suffering among humans as comparable to that of animals and the implication that in certain instances humans could be disposed of in the same way — quickly and painlessly. The distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary killing was thus effectively eradicated, and an ominous term was coined for the first time: "life unworthy of life."
In 1920 the concept of living beings not worthy of the life they embodied gained impetus with a tract published by two university professors, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche. Permission ,for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life articulated key implications for people with disabilities. Binding and Roche called for the killing of people with disabilities, whom they viewed as "incurable idiots" having no will or sense of living. Killing them, therefore, was hardly involuntary euthanasia, that is, the imposition of others' will upon them. This shifted the burden of human existence from simply being alive to requiring an explicit justification for living. For Binding and Roche, therefore, the right to live was to he earned, not assumed. One earned the right to live by being a useful economic contributor to society. Chief among the individuals they saw as being useless were those who seemed to have little or no human feeling, or in their terms, "empty human husks" whose only societal function was the consuming of precious resources while contributing nothing to society in return. In Binding and Hoche's terms, they were "useless eaters" whose "ballast lives" could be tossed overboard to better balance the economic ship of state. In speaking of those with disabilities, and explicitly advocating involuntary euthanasia, Binding and Hoche wrote,
Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not regard it as being unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the smallest gap — except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses.
Furthermore, Binding and Hoche drove home the economic argument by calculating the total cost expended in caring for such people. They concluded that this cost was "a massive capital in the form of foodstuffs, clothing and heating, which is being subtracted from the national product for entirely unproductive purposes".
Binding and Hoche's polemic was furiously debated across Germany. One strident critic of the Binding and Hoche position was Ewald Meltzer, the director of an asylum in Saxony, who held that many of his charges did indeed have the ability to enjoy life inasmuch as their disabilities would allow. In an attempt to support his belief, Meltzer surveyed the parents of his patients to ascertain their perceptions of disability and euthanasia. To Meltzer's astonishment, the survey results showed a widely held contradiction among the parents that although they had strong emotional ties to their children, they simultaneously expressed, with varying degrees of qualification, a "positive" attitude toward killing them. In fact, only a handful of respondents completely rejected all notions of euthanasia. The results of this survey were a harbinger of future public and official perceptions and actions toward people with disabilities. Meltzer's survey was later used as a major rationale for the killing of thousands of people with disabilities under the National Socialists, whose long-held social perceptions of difference coupled with official state prejudice delineated a series of genocidal markers that doomed significant numbers of people with disabilities during the Nazi era."
...
"Propaganda was not limited to film, however, but also appeared in German literature. An exemplar of this work is the novel Sendung und Gewissen (Mission and Conscience), which was turned into a very popular film, Ich Klage an! (1 Accuse!). In the story, a beautiful young woman suffering from multiple sclerosis decides that her life is no longer worth living and requests a "merciful death" at the hand of her husband, a physician. In the film's death scene climax, he administers the fatal injection to his wife, who dies peacefully to the strains of soothing piano music played by a friend in the next room. At his trial, the doctor heroically refuses to allow his colleagues to invent an alibi for the murder and challenges the court by asking, "Would you, if you were a cripple, want to vegetate forever?" Predictably, the court acquits the physician because his actions were merciful, not murderous, a notion reinforced in the closing scenes, where the words of the Renaissance physician Paracelsus are recalled, that "medicine is love".
This type of propaganda, fueled by then current perceptions of disability and euthanasia, profoundly affected the German public. By the late 1930s, requests for mercy killing were being received by Nazi officials. For example, requests were received from a woman ill with terminal cancer and from a man who had been severely injured and blinded in a construction accident. The state was also receiving similar requests from parents of newborns and young infants with severe physical and intellectual disabilities.
To this point, Nazi involvement with mercy killing, while implicit, appears to have been muted and uninitiated by the state. However, social perceptions of disability had been radically modified, and requests for mercy deaths were increasing and were generally viewed as more acceptable, whether conducted by individual citizens or the state. Essentially, disability was widely acknowledged to be a legitimate justification for murder.
Marker 5: Disability as Justification for Individual and State-Sanctioned Murder
The threshold for beginning official killing of people with disabilities was reached in 1937 and 1938, when publicly reported cases of "mercy" killing galvanized the population. Two cases are most often cited. The first, an act of individual commission, involved the murder of a German male with emotional and behavioral disorders by his father. The second, the case of the Knauer child, signified a critical shift from individual citizens' responsibility for and commission of "mercy killing" to that of the state. These two cases heralded a significant shift from voluntary requests by the suffering individual for "merciful" death to decisions to kill made by others based only on the disability of the victim."
"Hitler's personal attending physician, Karl Brandt, was dispatched to Leipzig to examine the child and to evaluate the extent of her disability. Brandt testified at his Nuremberg trial that he discovered in Leipzig a "creature . . . born blind, an idiot — at least it seemed to be an idiot — and it lacked one leg and part of an arm". Brandt had prior instructions to meet with the Leipzig consulting physicians to confirm the father's view of the child. He had further been directed that should the child indeed be severely disabled, he should instruct the attending physicians, in the name of the state, to "carry out euthanasia."
In his trial testimony after the war, Brandt emphasized that part of the rationale in this approach was to absolve the parents and doctors of any guilt or incrimination if they were responsible for the child's death. Hitler, on behalf of the state, assumed responsibility for the death of the Knauer child, directing Brandt to assure the physicians that any legal repercussions resulting from their actions would be quashed. Hitler's personal assurance was also relayed, via Hitler's deputy, Martin Bormann, to Franz Guertner, the minister of justice. Clearly, the state now both sanctioned murder and offered absolution from guilt for the perpetrators.
The attending Leipzig physicians appeared to have offered little resistance, assuring Brandt that the Knauer child should die. Citing their professional experience on the maternity wards, they informed him that it was "quite natural for doctors themselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further being said about it". Shortly thereafter, a junior physician administered a lethal injection to the child while the nurses were taking a coffee break.
Subsequent to the death of the Knauer child, Hitler authorized high-level officials to formally establish a state-sanctioned program to kill children with physical and intellectual disabilities"
...
"Disability as a genocidal marker was not reserved only for children. As a logical extension of the children's killing program, adults with disabilities were the next group targeted for disposal. The children's program had established the necessary prototypical bureaucratic processes and boasted a host of officials willing to be complicit in mass murder. In the summer of 1939, Hitler directed top-level officials to implement an adult euthanasia program, issuing a formal directive on his personal stationery that certain officials were "charged with responsibility to extend the powers of specific doctors in such a way that, after the most careful assessment of the condition, those suffering from illnesses deemed to be incurable may be granted a mercy death".
The letter, dated September 1, 1939, the day of the outbreak of World War II, was actually written a month later and backdated to imply that it was part of the war effort instead of the culmination of years of prejudice against people with disabilities. Furthermore, the use of Hitler's official stationery carried the imprimatur of an official decree while simultaneously circumventing formal legal processes that would have made this plan public. An entire bureaucracy of sham organizations was then created to execute this new project. Surreptitiously headquartered in an unmarked, nondescript villa in Berlin, the program was named Aktion T-4, after the villa's address at Tiergartenstrasse 4. Initial efforts to establish the adult killing program included augmenting the three-man panels that had decided the fate of so many children. Swiftly, high-level officials who had directed the children's program asked several asylum directors and prominent academics to initiate the program, ostensibly to free up hospital beds and nursing staff for war casualties. Almost all of them agreed.
At about the same time, German soldiers were engaged in the mass murder of institutionalized patients across occupied eastern Europe; the first of such killings occurred in northeastern Germany and in occupied Poland in early January 1940. Field officers informed Himmler, for example, of "the elimination of approximately 4,400 incurably mentally ill from Polish insane asylums". In this action, patients from several asylums were rounded up, taken to nearby woods, and individually shot in the back of the head. Between 1939 and 1944, almost 13,000 Polish psychiatric patients were killed in this way. However, in such instances, it quickly became evident that the perpetrators' close proximity to the resulting gore exacted a heavy psychological toll that could be reduced only by using less grisly methods.
The logistical necessities involved in killing large numbers of asylum inmates were also problematic within Germany itself. After rejecting several improbable solutions (such as mass train wrecks), it was decided that carbon monoxide gas would be the most effective. The choice of gas was reinforced after attempts to destroy groups of Polish asylum inmates by tying several of them together and blowing them up with dynamite proved too unsavory. A human experiment on the effectiveness of the gas was conducted in January 1940. A number of senior officials responsible for Aktion T-4, including many asylum directors and several others who would later make their names infamous at Auschwitz, gathered at a defunct prison near Berlin. Approximately 20 naked asylum inmates were herded into a prototypical gas chamber by psychiatric nurses. The enthusiastic onlookers watched closely as the inmates died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Eight further inmates were administered lethal injections, but when the poison had little immediate effect, these inmates were gassed as well. Buoyed by the dreadful success he had just witnessed, Viktor Brack, one of the top Aktion T-4 officials, victoriously declared the importance of using physicians to administer the gas through his oft-repeated motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor".
This gassing process was then repeated several times to refine its efficacy. Soon after, gas cylinders were delivered to six regional killing centers across Germany."
...
"When the official programs at the six killing centers ceased, the task of euthanasia reverted to hospitals and other institutions across Germany that housed people with disabilities. The preferred methods of killing once again became lethal injection, starvation, and intentional exposure. Such routine killing occurred throughout the rest of the war and even for several months thereafter."
...
"Nor are these issues confined to the United States. The Netherlands, for example, has legislated euthanasia as a citizen's right, legally absolving physicians from criminality in these procedures — an unsubtle reincarnation of Viktor Brack's ghoulish notion that "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." In both Oregon and the Netherlands, the state has become an arbiter of decisions about life and death for its citizens, including persons with disabilities."
This is so true! My mom who is 72 is scared to death, especially after covid, to go to a hospital because of all the mentioned reasons! I myself avoid doctors and hospitals like the plague and instead look into all sorts of ways to educate myself on healthcare issues.
I had to tell a doctor who was treating my mom at the hospital for a bladder infection that she was not suitable to be a doctor because they tested her against her will for covid! I kept on asking her what right she thinks she has to do do procedures against a patients explicit will and she got into a fit rambling on about the bladder infection.
Also years ago I went to take my son to a doctor after a severe throat angina and he got mad at me because he could see he wasn't vaccinated and mentioned that while shaking his head, making me feel it was my fault and that the throat angina somehow was the result of it.
You have to have nerves of steel and be very stoic to go against these so called healthcare workers! Angels of death would be more accurate I would say!
"Smith warns that future troubles could be tied to the fact that only 14% of doctors today report having taken the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” Smith even recounts episodes of doctors recommending that the old or sick be denied basic treatments which might potentially save life. This enlightening book unmasks unexpected occurrences in the present practice of medicine, and shines light into a future that many of us might not like."
And that was written in 2016. For normal and ordinary elder and sick care. Before 2020. Which gave doctors even more incentive, officially green-lighted, to deny basic treatments which might potentially save life. Continues.
And many hospital systems found in most states will deny organ transplants to the disobedient. Who refuse to take an unsafe and ineffective injection because the politics say so, social science. Not medical science. Care denied. Harm of Remdesivir and other harm and death-inducing medications remain standard protocols.
Ladies and gentlemen, Hippocrates has left the building.
I remember when I was little and elder family members were at the end of life or had died. Every family member was notified whether good relations or not-you showed up! We would all be together as a family in the elder’s home. There would be food, friends of the family, stories, tears and laughter and every family member would have their time with our loved one. The gathering was expected. It was also expected the our loved one would die, if they hadn’t already. This was followed by their funeral and a celebration of their life with another gathering open to anyone. Like everything these days the premise of death with dignity has quickly devolved into physician assisted suicide.
I am of the belief that we the people should be able to accept or decline actual health care (I do not consider the at-will killing of innocent babies in the womb until the point of delivery, the castration & mutilation of children or assisted suicide ‘actual’ healthcare) of any kind from any type of provider without fear of repercussions or judgement. People should be allowed to live a natural life and die a natural death, without interference of those who think they know more than me or want to use their unqualified power over me. It’s NONE of their business! There are humane ways of helping reduce suffering in a time of dying that doesn’t actually kill the person. But, the thing is, sometimes, just as in being born, dying can take a long time for the individual as well as the friends and family. Patience is required. Time is required. Space is required. It is quicker and more efficient to use physician assisted suicide than to allow the natural process of dying to take place. We need to stop rushing human nature. It takes the time it takes and we all deserve to have it.
Based on the "covid" and "vaccination" experiences of the last 4 years, I don't think that doctors are worried about the lives of their patients! The WHO should declare another "health emergency" and then pay a few thousand dollars to implement the WHO-X virus protocol, then "vaccines" and start killing people without euthanasia laws! I think the barrier has already been broken, and thinking about such laws only distracts people from the fact that what happened once with impunity can happen again at any time! If not according to the euthanasia law, then other laws are passed to kill members of the plebs "legally"/with impunity! And the representatives didn't care about people's lives until now, why would they now?! And those who share the truth have been persecuted, discredited and slandered - including Dr. Vernon Coleman - so this is not the way to go!
Governments have shown “the Law” is of no concern to them, they’ll change it and make it retroactive for as long as needed or desired, or ignore it altogether.
Just look at how we were sold on abortion. Rare, within the first 12 weeks-and now it’s fine to kill a viable baby up until the point of birth.
Even after the point of birth, according to that idiot governor.
This is where euthanasia leads. We've been down this road before. Aren't we supposed to learn from history, lest we be doomed to repeat it?
Useless Eaters: Disability as Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany
The Journal of Special Education/Catholic Culture, 2002
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7019
"By 1929, the number of psychiatric patients in all levels of care had almost doubled from the years immediately following World War I. Economic considerations were exacerbated by the Depression beginning in 1929, and inpatient populations grew rapidly as many families of previously deinstitutionalized persons, no longer able to support them, returned them to private and state-run facilities. It was at this point that the seeds of genocide were sown among professionals and ordinary German citizens alike. The juxtaposition of severe economic constraints, crowded asylums, the attachment of levels of economic viability to human worth, and the sense that people with disabilities formed a burdensome and often criminal element in society all significantly added fuel to ethical debates concerning euthanasia and sterilization. By the late 1930s, there was open discussion among many asylum administrators about actually killing inmates.
Euthanasia and Voluntariness
Historically, euthanasia has meant a voluntary request for death without suffering by the patient. However, in the 17th century its meaning was modified to grant the right to alleviate suffering exclusively to physicians. While the meaning and implications of euthanasia changed somewhat over time, it was universally accepted that the act of euthanasia was always voluntary. That is, when individuals exercised their right to voluntarily choose the timing and the manner of their death as a means of ending their suffering, it was a physician's responsibility to assist them. However, in the 1890s the meaning of euthanasia in Europe, and especially in Germany, came to include two other aspects. First, the notion of a voluntary "right to die" was extended to mean that in some instances the request for euthanasia could be made by persons other than the suffering patient. Second, the extraordinary levels of care accorded the terminally ill and asylum inmates again raised the issue of negative human worth and underlined the possibility of involuntary euthanasia; that is, the economic burden that terminal illness or caring for the insane placed on families, caregivers, and the community was a factor to consider in decisions for euthanasia. In one sense, therefore, the debate quickly shifted from the idea of a "gentle death" itself to who would request or abet the patient's demise. Subsequent branches of the debate took up the notion of suffering among humans as comparable to that of animals and the implication that in certain instances humans could be disposed of in the same way — quickly and painlessly. The distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary killing was thus effectively eradicated, and an ominous term was coined for the first time: "life unworthy of life."
In 1920 the concept of living beings not worthy of the life they embodied gained impetus with a tract published by two university professors, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche. Permission ,for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life articulated key implications for people with disabilities. Binding and Roche called for the killing of people with disabilities, whom they viewed as "incurable idiots" having no will or sense of living. Killing them, therefore, was hardly involuntary euthanasia, that is, the imposition of others' will upon them. This shifted the burden of human existence from simply being alive to requiring an explicit justification for living. For Binding and Roche, therefore, the right to live was to he earned, not assumed. One earned the right to live by being a useful economic contributor to society. Chief among the individuals they saw as being useless were those who seemed to have little or no human feeling, or in their terms, "empty human husks" whose only societal function was the consuming of precious resources while contributing nothing to society in return. In Binding and Hoche's terms, they were "useless eaters" whose "ballast lives" could be tossed overboard to better balance the economic ship of state. In speaking of those with disabilities, and explicitly advocating involuntary euthanasia, Binding and Hoche wrote,
Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not regard it as being unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the smallest gap — except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or loyal nurses.
Furthermore, Binding and Hoche drove home the economic argument by calculating the total cost expended in caring for such people. They concluded that this cost was "a massive capital in the form of foodstuffs, clothing and heating, which is being subtracted from the national product for entirely unproductive purposes".
Binding and Hoche's polemic was furiously debated across Germany. One strident critic of the Binding and Hoche position was Ewald Meltzer, the director of an asylum in Saxony, who held that many of his charges did indeed have the ability to enjoy life inasmuch as their disabilities would allow. In an attempt to support his belief, Meltzer surveyed the parents of his patients to ascertain their perceptions of disability and euthanasia. To Meltzer's astonishment, the survey results showed a widely held contradiction among the parents that although they had strong emotional ties to their children, they simultaneously expressed, with varying degrees of qualification, a "positive" attitude toward killing them. In fact, only a handful of respondents completely rejected all notions of euthanasia. The results of this survey were a harbinger of future public and official perceptions and actions toward people with disabilities. Meltzer's survey was later used as a major rationale for the killing of thousands of people with disabilities under the National Socialists, whose long-held social perceptions of difference coupled with official state prejudice delineated a series of genocidal markers that doomed significant numbers of people with disabilities during the Nazi era."
...
"Propaganda was not limited to film, however, but also appeared in German literature. An exemplar of this work is the novel Sendung und Gewissen (Mission and Conscience), which was turned into a very popular film, Ich Klage an! (1 Accuse!). In the story, a beautiful young woman suffering from multiple sclerosis decides that her life is no longer worth living and requests a "merciful death" at the hand of her husband, a physician. In the film's death scene climax, he administers the fatal injection to his wife, who dies peacefully to the strains of soothing piano music played by a friend in the next room. At his trial, the doctor heroically refuses to allow his colleagues to invent an alibi for the murder and challenges the court by asking, "Would you, if you were a cripple, want to vegetate forever?" Predictably, the court acquits the physician because his actions were merciful, not murderous, a notion reinforced in the closing scenes, where the words of the Renaissance physician Paracelsus are recalled, that "medicine is love".
This type of propaganda, fueled by then current perceptions of disability and euthanasia, profoundly affected the German public. By the late 1930s, requests for mercy killing were being received by Nazi officials. For example, requests were received from a woman ill with terminal cancer and from a man who had been severely injured and blinded in a construction accident. The state was also receiving similar requests from parents of newborns and young infants with severe physical and intellectual disabilities.
To this point, Nazi involvement with mercy killing, while implicit, appears to have been muted and uninitiated by the state. However, social perceptions of disability had been radically modified, and requests for mercy deaths were increasing and were generally viewed as more acceptable, whether conducted by individual citizens or the state. Essentially, disability was widely acknowledged to be a legitimate justification for murder.
Marker 5: Disability as Justification for Individual and State-Sanctioned Murder
The threshold for beginning official killing of people with disabilities was reached in 1937 and 1938, when publicly reported cases of "mercy" killing galvanized the population. Two cases are most often cited. The first, an act of individual commission, involved the murder of a German male with emotional and behavioral disorders by his father. The second, the case of the Knauer child, signified a critical shift from individual citizens' responsibility for and commission of "mercy killing" to that of the state. These two cases heralded a significant shift from voluntary requests by the suffering individual for "merciful" death to decisions to kill made by others based only on the disability of the victim."
...
(1 of 2, con't next comment)
(2 of 2, con't from above)
"Hitler's personal attending physician, Karl Brandt, was dispatched to Leipzig to examine the child and to evaluate the extent of her disability. Brandt testified at his Nuremberg trial that he discovered in Leipzig a "creature . . . born blind, an idiot — at least it seemed to be an idiot — and it lacked one leg and part of an arm". Brandt had prior instructions to meet with the Leipzig consulting physicians to confirm the father's view of the child. He had further been directed that should the child indeed be severely disabled, he should instruct the attending physicians, in the name of the state, to "carry out euthanasia."
In his trial testimony after the war, Brandt emphasized that part of the rationale in this approach was to absolve the parents and doctors of any guilt or incrimination if they were responsible for the child's death. Hitler, on behalf of the state, assumed responsibility for the death of the Knauer child, directing Brandt to assure the physicians that any legal repercussions resulting from their actions would be quashed. Hitler's personal assurance was also relayed, via Hitler's deputy, Martin Bormann, to Franz Guertner, the minister of justice. Clearly, the state now both sanctioned murder and offered absolution from guilt for the perpetrators.
The attending Leipzig physicians appeared to have offered little resistance, assuring Brandt that the Knauer child should die. Citing their professional experience on the maternity wards, they informed him that it was "quite natural for doctors themselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further being said about it". Shortly thereafter, a junior physician administered a lethal injection to the child while the nurses were taking a coffee break.
Subsequent to the death of the Knauer child, Hitler authorized high-level officials to formally establish a state-sanctioned program to kill children with physical and intellectual disabilities"
...
"Disability as a genocidal marker was not reserved only for children. As a logical extension of the children's killing program, adults with disabilities were the next group targeted for disposal. The children's program had established the necessary prototypical bureaucratic processes and boasted a host of officials willing to be complicit in mass murder. In the summer of 1939, Hitler directed top-level officials to implement an adult euthanasia program, issuing a formal directive on his personal stationery that certain officials were "charged with responsibility to extend the powers of specific doctors in such a way that, after the most careful assessment of the condition, those suffering from illnesses deemed to be incurable may be granted a mercy death".
The letter, dated September 1, 1939, the day of the outbreak of World War II, was actually written a month later and backdated to imply that it was part of the war effort instead of the culmination of years of prejudice against people with disabilities. Furthermore, the use of Hitler's official stationery carried the imprimatur of an official decree while simultaneously circumventing formal legal processes that would have made this plan public. An entire bureaucracy of sham organizations was then created to execute this new project. Surreptitiously headquartered in an unmarked, nondescript villa in Berlin, the program was named Aktion T-4, after the villa's address at Tiergartenstrasse 4. Initial efforts to establish the adult killing program included augmenting the three-man panels that had decided the fate of so many children. Swiftly, high-level officials who had directed the children's program asked several asylum directors and prominent academics to initiate the program, ostensibly to free up hospital beds and nursing staff for war casualties. Almost all of them agreed.
At about the same time, German soldiers were engaged in the mass murder of institutionalized patients across occupied eastern Europe; the first of such killings occurred in northeastern Germany and in occupied Poland in early January 1940. Field officers informed Himmler, for example, of "the elimination of approximately 4,400 incurably mentally ill from Polish insane asylums". In this action, patients from several asylums were rounded up, taken to nearby woods, and individually shot in the back of the head. Between 1939 and 1944, almost 13,000 Polish psychiatric patients were killed in this way. However, in such instances, it quickly became evident that the perpetrators' close proximity to the resulting gore exacted a heavy psychological toll that could be reduced only by using less grisly methods.
The logistical necessities involved in killing large numbers of asylum inmates were also problematic within Germany itself. After rejecting several improbable solutions (such as mass train wrecks), it was decided that carbon monoxide gas would be the most effective. The choice of gas was reinforced after attempts to destroy groups of Polish asylum inmates by tying several of them together and blowing them up with dynamite proved too unsavory. A human experiment on the effectiveness of the gas was conducted in January 1940. A number of senior officials responsible for Aktion T-4, including many asylum directors and several others who would later make their names infamous at Auschwitz, gathered at a defunct prison near Berlin. Approximately 20 naked asylum inmates were herded into a prototypical gas chamber by psychiatric nurses. The enthusiastic onlookers watched closely as the inmates died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Eight further inmates were administered lethal injections, but when the poison had little immediate effect, these inmates were gassed as well. Buoyed by the dreadful success he had just witnessed, Viktor Brack, one of the top Aktion T-4 officials, victoriously declared the importance of using physicians to administer the gas through his oft-repeated motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor".
This gassing process was then repeated several times to refine its efficacy. Soon after, gas cylinders were delivered to six regional killing centers across Germany."
...
"When the official programs at the six killing centers ceased, the task of euthanasia reverted to hospitals and other institutions across Germany that housed people with disabilities. The preferred methods of killing once again became lethal injection, starvation, and intentional exposure. Such routine killing occurred throughout the rest of the war and even for several months thereafter."
...
"Nor are these issues confined to the United States. The Netherlands, for example, has legislated euthanasia as a citizen's right, legally absolving physicians from criminality in these procedures — an unsubtle reincarnation of Viktor Brack's ghoulish notion that "the needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." In both Oregon and the Netherlands, the state has become an arbiter of decisions about life and death for its citizens, including persons with disabilities."
This is so true! My mom who is 72 is scared to death, especially after covid, to go to a hospital because of all the mentioned reasons! I myself avoid doctors and hospitals like the plague and instead look into all sorts of ways to educate myself on healthcare issues.
I had to tell a doctor who was treating my mom at the hospital for a bladder infection that she was not suitable to be a doctor because they tested her against her will for covid! I kept on asking her what right she thinks she has to do do procedures against a patients explicit will and she got into a fit rambling on about the bladder infection.
Also years ago I went to take my son to a doctor after a severe throat angina and he got mad at me because he could see he wasn't vaccinated and mentioned that while shaking his head, making me feel it was my fault and that the throat angina somehow was the result of it.
You have to have nerves of steel and be very stoic to go against these so called healthcare workers! Angels of death would be more accurate I would say!
The only people who should be Euthanized are those guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. #DepopulateTheDepopulators #MEGA
For the purpose of a debate.
What about people who've been brainwashed?
If you brainwashed a bunch of people to believe they are doing good by oppressing x group.
Then when de-programned they realise their terrible crimes.
While I don't agree with capital murder if pressed I'd say I'd stick with the thinkers, not the doers.
The reasons for the Hippocratic oath.
Fewer than 15% of doctors take it these days. The odds are not in your favor.
Culture of death : the assault on medical ethics in America
Wesley A Smith, 2000
https://archive.org/details/cultureofdeath00wesl
Smith's Follow up book:
Culture of Death, The Age of "Do Harm" Medicine
Discovery Institute, 2016
https://www.discovery.org/b/culture-of-death/
"Smith warns that future troubles could be tied to the fact that only 14% of doctors today report having taken the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” Smith even recounts episodes of doctors recommending that the old or sick be denied basic treatments which might potentially save life. This enlightening book unmasks unexpected occurrences in the present practice of medicine, and shines light into a future that many of us might not like."
I did not know that. Chilling, indeed.
And that was written in 2016. For normal and ordinary elder and sick care. Before 2020. Which gave doctors even more incentive, officially green-lighted, to deny basic treatments which might potentially save life. Continues.
And many hospital systems found in most states will deny organ transplants to the disobedient. Who refuse to take an unsafe and ineffective injection because the politics say so, social science. Not medical science. Care denied. Harm of Remdesivir and other harm and death-inducing medications remain standard protocols.
Ladies and gentlemen, Hippocrates has left the building.
And I don’t know if he’ll be back, at least not in our lifetimes.
I remember when I was little and elder family members were at the end of life or had died. Every family member was notified whether good relations or not-you showed up! We would all be together as a family in the elder’s home. There would be food, friends of the family, stories, tears and laughter and every family member would have their time with our loved one. The gathering was expected. It was also expected the our loved one would die, if they hadn’t already. This was followed by their funeral and a celebration of their life with another gathering open to anyone. Like everything these days the premise of death with dignity has quickly devolved into physician assisted suicide.
I am of the belief that we the people should be able to accept or decline actual health care (I do not consider the at-will killing of innocent babies in the womb until the point of delivery, the castration & mutilation of children or assisted suicide ‘actual’ healthcare) of any kind from any type of provider without fear of repercussions or judgement. People should be allowed to live a natural life and die a natural death, without interference of those who think they know more than me or want to use their unqualified power over me. It’s NONE of their business! There are humane ways of helping reduce suffering in a time of dying that doesn’t actually kill the person. But, the thing is, sometimes, just as in being born, dying can take a long time for the individual as well as the friends and family. Patience is required. Time is required. Space is required. It is quicker and more efficient to use physician assisted suicide than to allow the natural process of dying to take place. We need to stop rushing human nature. It takes the time it takes and we all deserve to have it.
Well said!
Based on the "covid" and "vaccination" experiences of the last 4 years, I don't think that doctors are worried about the lives of their patients! The WHO should declare another "health emergency" and then pay a few thousand dollars to implement the WHO-X virus protocol, then "vaccines" and start killing people without euthanasia laws! I think the barrier has already been broken, and thinking about such laws only distracts people from the fact that what happened once with impunity can happen again at any time! If not according to the euthanasia law, then other laws are passed to kill members of the plebs "legally"/with impunity! And the representatives didn't care about people's lives until now, why would they now?! And those who share the truth have been persecuted, discredited and slandered - including Dr. Vernon Coleman - so this is not the way to go!
Governments have shown “the Law” is of no concern to them, they’ll change it and make it retroactive for as long as needed or desired, or ignore it altogether.
Elusive1, thanks for the restack.
Greg, Abigail, thanks for the restacks.
Arturo, thanks for the restack, it is important to me.
Kenn, Wilma, thanks for the restacks.
Thanks for the restack, Elizabeth.