X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Approved-By:  Bill McGarry <wtm@SHELDEV.SHEL.ISC-BR.COM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.l-hcap
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:45:29 EDT
Reply-To:     Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
From:         Bill McGarry <wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com>
Subject:      Handicap Digest # 2558
X-To:         LHCAP <l-hcap@VM1.NODAK.EDU>

                          THE HANDICAP DIGEST

                               Issue # 2558

                           Monday, April 06, 1992

Today's Topics:


                                ******


               States, Courts, Clamor For Euthanasia Solution
     Governor Lam Offers Brave New World Rationalization For Euthanasia


                                ******


To subscribe to the Handicap Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:


UUCP:       {oliveb, isc-br, decvax}!bunker!wtm
INTERNET:   wtm@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET:     l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet:    The Handicap News BBS (141/420)   1-203-337-1607
	    (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours)
Compuserve: 73170,1064

                              Bill McGarry (Moderator)
                              (203) 337-1518



------



Subject: States, Courts, Clamor For Euthanasia Solution
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Organization: Covici Computer Systems


States, courts clamor for euthanasia
solution
by Linda Everett

As the economic crisis intensifies, state
officials, judges and lawmakers are exhibiting a
willingness to relinquish any state's interest in
preserving life, in favor of laws and policies that
enforce involuntary euthanasia. Behind the media focus on
myriad state prescriptions to expand access to health care
are scores of state proposals that increase the ways
medical facilities can kill anyone who allegedly ``wants''
to die through advance directives, and which expand the
authority of physicians and facilities to kill outright
any patient they think ought to die.
   While the nation is still being brainwashed by
prime-time television movies that canonize those who arrange a
parent's suicide (Patty Duke in ``Last Wish'') and families
who starve their relatives to death (Frontline's ``The
Death of Nancy Cruzan'' on PBS), county-owned nursing homes
in New Hampshire are rigorously enforcing a policy that
denies admittance to indigent elderly patients who refuse
to sign a ``no code'' or do-not-resuscitate agreement. The
policy saves county funds by forgoing staff training and
equipment needed in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. County
officials say they wanted to give residents the best
choices for a good quality of life. This translates to no
choices, as the staff stand by while patients arrest,
gasp, turn blue, and die. Indicative of the trend is New
Jersey's State Bioethics Commission, which has initiated
``study'' on how the state can make death-by-starvation
decisions for legally incompetent patients in state
institutions.

              - Avalanche of death bills -
   The sheer breadth, numbers, and sweeping enforcement
powers of pro-death bills flooding state legislatures
signal one thing: Desperate officials have gone into a
malthusian frenzy, willing to utilize as many ways as
politically feasible to eliminate whole layers of their
own constituency. This is no exaggeration. Under the
euphemism of ``patients' rights,'' some legislatures have
proposed eight or more bills that call for patient
starvation, involuntary euthanasia, lethal injections,
prohibiting emergency personnel from resuscitating certain
patients, having one's living will noted on one's driver's
license, killing wards of the state, and giving health
maintenance organizations and community group homes the
right to oust patients who insist on medical treatment. In
the process, the United States has come the closest it has
ever been to enacting laws that would enforce the same
Nazi practices that even Adolf Hitler knew could not
easily be voted into law.
   Iowa, New Hampshire, and Maine all had bills
introduced in the current session to make legal
physician-assisted or medically-assisted
``suicide''--exactly what the post-World War II Nuremberg
Tribunals condemned as genocide. Where bills do not pass,
they serve to create a public forum for Hemlock Society
activists to acclimate voters to a Nazi perspective. If
the death mob can persuade you--and the medical
profession--that illness makes your life less ``useful'' or
``worthy,'' you'll not fight state or court policy to kill
those with a ``poor quality of life.'' More importantly,
such bills serve to legitimize ``mercy'' murderers like
Michigan's Jack Kevorkian.
   Other states are adapting their existing ``living
wills'' or ``durable power of attorneys'' statutes to
President George Bush's ``Patient's Self-Determination
Act,'' which went into effect December 1991. The Bush law
mandates that every health facility receiving federal
funds must ``educate'' new patients about the facility's
and state and federal ``right to die'' policies. The
Euthanasia Society, known as the Society for the Right to
Die, worked with federal agencies to develop the
brainwashing guidelines. Beneath the ``rights'' rhetoric is
the testimony presented for this law that expressly states
that while patients and their families can refuse any and
all medical treatment, doctors have no obligation to
provide what they consider ``unethical'' or ``futile''
treatment. This loophole handily converts ``right to
die'' to a duty to die, and is the basis for the latest round of
state legislation.

       - Virginia--most advanced euthanasia law -
   Early in 1992, Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder
announced a plan to tax hospitals in the state .5% of their
gross receipts--{not profits}--taken in over the next two
years to help to avoid, as he put it, having to throw
the disabled on the streets. While that plan collapsed,
the Virginia Assembly proposed another. Despite vigorous
opposition, the Assembly passed the most advanced
euthanasia law in the country. Should Governor Wilder sign
the Health Care Decisions Act, a new era of state law will
have begun, one which mirrors directly Hitler's October
1939 euthanasia decree, giving doctors permission to kill
institutionalized patients ``considered incurable according
to the best available human judgment'' (Hitler's words).
   Under the new law, the extermination of severely
handicapped individuals, including wards of the state, can
be carried out by the same doctors, guardians, and
committees charged with protecting them. The bill
specifically says it is applicable to patients in
psychiatric and mental retardation facilities, who are
incapable of making their wishes known and who have no
``reasonable expectation of recovery.'' That sweeping
category could encompass a myriad of conditions brought on
by disease, head trauma, stroke, or age. That's not
surprising: Virginia, after all, has a history of allowing
such barbarities, including sterilization of persons
deemed genetically inferior, during the 1920s' heyday of
the American eugenics movement. The bill is so blatant
about targeting incompetent patients, that the Feb. 20
lead editorial of the {Richmond Times-Dispatch} says in
``Who Chooses Death?'' that with this bill, ``... the state
may be on the verge of endorsing--with scarcely any
debate--involuntary euthanasia.''
   Virginia already has a Natural Death Act that lets
individuals, besieged by horror stories about terminal
illnesses, sign directives to indicate what medical
treatment they do or don't want should they become
incompetent, or to appoint an agent to carry out those
treatment wishes. People think leaving a directive with
explicit instructions for life-saving treatment and daily
nutrition will guarantee they'll receive it. Not so: Even
those who choose not to sign a directive, assuming that
decision will signal that they want life-saving treatment,
are not safe, because this bill, like others, explicitly
rules out that assumption. Once patients are diagnosed as
``terminally ill'' or in a ``persistent vegetative state,''
their instructions to withdraw or withhold treatment are
activated. But no matter how much a patient or family
wants life-saving or life-sustaining treatment and daily
nourishment, this bill allows doctors to deny it if they
feel it ``medically or ethically inappropriate'' to treat or
feed the patient. The ethic of saving human life is
supplanted by the ``ethic'' of cutting state costs or making
managed care and health maintenance organization profits.

              - Washington state--again! -
   Just months after voters defeated the Hemlock
Society's assisted suicide initiative in November,
Washington legislators amended the state's Natural Death
Act. Contrary to its alleged protection of patients'
medical treatment rights, the bill lets anyone deny
life-sustaining and life-saving treatment, including food
and water, to patients with directives. Like the Virginia
law, it promotes policies that constitute outright medical
fraud. When a patient is called ``terminal,'' this no longer
indicates that a patient's death is ``imminent.'' Now, it means
the patient is ``in the process of dying''! Anyone, because
of accident, disease, or disability, who is comatose,
unresponding or in a non-communicative state, is labeled
``terminally ill''--and ``in the process of dying.'' People
with severe handicaps, who laugh at jokes, respond to
commands, or use devices to signal what they want, are
often misdiagnosed or wittingly labeled as ``permanently
unconscious,'' ``hopeless,'' or in a ``persistent vegetative
state''--all medically unscientific terms meant to
discourage treatment and influence you to see them as
inhuman. As has been documented (``Medical Advances Expose
Euthanasia Lobby Lies,'' {EIR} Vol. 18, No. 40) these
people do recover if allowed--and if fed. With appropriate
rehabilitation, they even flourish. Yet the Washington
bill states that the ``permanently unconscious condition
may cause loss of patient dignity''--so, it suggests such
patients be starved to death to spare them the indignity
of their condition!
   Involuntary euthanasia laws will move rapidly with
court rulings like that of Massachusetts' highest court.
On Jan. 6, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court
ruling giving a state hospital ethics committee permission
to starve to death a 34-year-old profoundly retarded ward
of the state. ``Jane Doe,'' a 24-year resident of a state
facility was diagnosed in a ``persistent vegetative
state''--the catch-all phrase used by the death mob to
pronounce a person ``not worthy of life''--or, in this case,
of the state resources to sustain it. The decision comes
just as Massachusetts has started to shut down more than a
third of its state hospitals that care for patients like
Doe.
   Doe was never capable of making any decision about
her care, but the justices ``substituted'' their ``judgment''
for her, saying if she were competent, she'd want to be
starved to death. Therefore (as ludicrous as it sounds),
maintaining a feeding tube against her wishes ``robs her of
the right to determine her course of care.'' And, ``Doe's
right to self-determination must prevail over the state's
interest in preserving life for all.'' One has to agree
with one of the three dissenting justices, who stated: ``If
this is not involuntary euthanasia, or worse, it is hard
to know what it is.''

>From Executive Intelligence Review V19, #15.

----
Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this
newsgroup.

         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com





------



Subject: Governor Lam Offers Brave New World Rationalization For Euthanasia
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

Governor Lamm offers brave new world
rationalization for euthanasia
by Steve Parsons

During the 1980s, Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm
attained national notoriety for advocating what no other
major politician had dared to say: that the withholding of
medical care for those whose ``useful'' life had passed,
was not only appropriate, but a virtue necessary for
preserving the United States. Lamm worked hard to
popularize the socially taboo ideas of health care
rationing and euthanasia, which had heretofore been
confined to academic debates over ethics. Lamm argued,
``We've got a duty to die, to get out of the way.'' He
compared the effort to prolong human life to the futility
of pasting fallen leaves back on trees.
   Today, Lamm is the director of a think-tank at the
University of Denver called the Center for Public Policy
and Contemporary Issues. His career and his message have
intersected the increasing inability of the U.S. health
care system to meet the medical needs of the population,
at the same time that costs have soared beyond the means
of Americans to pay, and disease rates are rising because
of social collapse--tuberculosis, measles, AIDS, etc. What
is required are crash research programs on cures and
treatment for AIDS, cancer, and other diseases, and a
resumption of advanced health care--from infant
vaccinations to geriatric medicine.
   Instead, Lamm's outrageous views of yesterday are now
considered not only respectable, but are the genesis of
myriad legislation and medical regulations that aim to
curtail costs through restricting treatment and
prematurely ending life through living wills, ``assisted
suicide,'' and outright medical euthanasia.
   In contrast to these views of the death lobby, the
economic benefits to a society from high-technology health
care should be obvious. The real measure of the adequacy
of health care as an economic necessity is: Does it extend
human life? Does the average individual in society live
longer? And is the population growing?
   Examples abound of even simple money-saving benefits
from providing health care, instead of cutting budgets. In
the recent Texas measles epidemic, universal vaccination
of the young was not carried out, in order ``to save
money.'' Subsequently, thousands of children required far
more costly hospitalization.
   Lamm most recently appeared with Sen. Jay Rockefeller
(D-W.Va.) on a health care panel at a March 11 conference
sponsored by the Economic Strategy Institute, but his
rationalizations for denying health care had been
formulated in a paper entitled ``The Brave New World of
Health Care,'' issued in May 1990.

        - U.S. economy can't afford health care -
   In his paper, Lamm makes clear that his primary
concern over health care costs has nothing to do with
improving health care availability or delivery. On the
contrary, his subtitle, ``Health Care as Economic
Cancer,'' indicates his view that ``costs in the United
States are making our economy sick.'' He castigates the
morality that believes ``that everyone is entitled to
unlimited health care regardless of how costly and without
regard to a patient's prognosis for recovery,'' blasting
those who term his ``mere suggestions to the contrary ...
as an act of callous insensitivity.'' We must face up to
the reality that health care costs are consuming so much
of our gross national product that it will soon paralyze
the entire economy, he claims.
   It is the rising cost of health care that constitutes
one of the greatest drains from our competitiveness with
other nations, writes Lamm, as well as ``the single
biggest cause of individual bankruptcy and of industrial
unrest ... [which] could wreak havoc with reported
[corporate] profits, book values, and stock market
valuations.'' Our ``medical genius'' and ``exploding
technology'' are leading to ``fiscal suicide''--unless we
``begin making hard choices and develop a system that
provides the best possible health care to the greatest
number of people {at a price the nation can afford}
[emphasis added].
   ``We are careening rapidly into a brave new world of
health care'' whose ``basic defining characteristic ... is
that we have invented more beneficial medicine than we as
a society can afford to pay for.... America's economy no
longer throws off as large a growth dividend with which to
buy benefits for its citizens. Our exploding health care
costs and our shrinking economy (caused in part by our
exploding health care costs) are on a collision course....
We no longer are as wealthy a nation as we once were. Our
resources are growing arithmetically, our health care
geometrically.''
   Therefore, concludes Lamm, ``How we adjust to this
brave new world ... will be politically and professionally
painful.... We shall, inevitably, have to decide what is
`appropriate'--not merely what could be `beneficial.'...
Health care prioritizing is the ugly child of our
brilliant success in health care.'' This prioritization
amounts to triaging--a polite term for killing--whole
segments of the population, axing research and development
of new technologies, savaging the morality and practice of
the medical profession, and destroying the humanity and
cultural values of America.

         - Accommodating to economic collapse -
   Unlike most other purveyors of the same bestial
policies, Lamm has exposed the fallacious premise of all
the arguments for rationing and triage: that one must
accept as a given the destitute and degenerating condition
of the U.S. economy. If one accepts that premise, there is
indeed no way that necessary health care can be provided.
If one does not change what for Lamm is this immutable
reality, then virtually everything he delineates, from the
breakdown in health care to the ``painful remedies,'' is
inevitable, regardless of one's moral outrage.
   Lamm believes Americans will do nothing fundamental
to reverse the depression. In 1984, he wrote an article
for {Playboy} magazine saying that George Orwell's {1984}
was not wrong, but merely a bit late. He titled that
article ``1994: A Prediction,'' and wrote:
   ``I believe we are now heading toward a gloomy future
filled with major economic, political, and social traumas,
and it's not that we can't alter that trend but that we
{won't.} Thus, we're careening toward disasters of our own
making.... These hard problems ... won't get better,
they'll get worse--unless attacked immediately. What
follows are my own best-guess predictions about where
certain political, social, and economic forces are taking
us. I have borrowed a technique from Orwell, whose book
projected 35 years into the future to help us conceive the
inconceivable. In this case, I have merely added 10 years
to this date.
   {``We will see a Depression-like economic trauma
before 1994''} from the ``{new reality of the static
economic pie.... By 1994, it will have become clear that
the U.S. is a country in liquidation.... 1994 will see the
U.S. with a substantially reduced middle class, and we
will have moved toward a two-class society.... 1994 will
see a bitter battle over a shrinking number of jobs.... I
predict that 1994 will see America's cities largely full
of angry, frustrated, and unemployed minorities....
America's health care system will be bankrupt by 1994.
   ``The Third World will be bankrupt by 1994.... By
1994, the U.S. will have an international welfare caseload
to add to its domestic welfare caseload.... We will see
constant political turmoil on our southern borders''}
(emphasis in original).
   In a 1985 lecture series at Pacifica School of
Religion in Berkeley, California, Lamb underscored his
contention that his predicted fate of nations is the
result of failing to act to change these otherwise
inevitable outcomes. ``These are not `developing'
countries,'' Lamb said. ``They are `never-to-be-developed'
countries. It is sad but true that most of the world's
poor will stay poor--and that there is nothing the
developed nations can do to alter this ... [to] make a
dent in their poverty.... Aristotle said it so well, `From
time to time it is necessary that pestilence, famine, and
war prune the luxuriant growth of the human race.'|''

            - Competitiveness ... and Perot -
   It is obvious that if the United States continues in
its present course, Lamm's 1994 brave new world will
indeed become reality. He and his accomplices in the death
lobby will have succeeded in destroying what he targeted
in that same lecture series: our cultural ``optimism
[that] is too deep; our traditions [that] are too strong;
our history [that] is too rich; and our self-confidence
[that] is too bold.''
   Indeed, Lamm's line that health care is one of the
biggest causes of the nation's lack of international
competitiveness, was retailed on March 1 by the
Competitiveness Policy Council. ``We single out this
sector for particular attention,'' said the council. Such
costs ``divert a large share of national resources that
could be used productively elsewhere.''
   This thinking is also reflected by billionaire H.
Ross Perot, who is now being puffed by the media as an
independent presidential candidate. During an interview
March 27 on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Perot blamed the
elderly for much of the nation's economic ills. He said he
agreed with outgoing Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), who
blasted ``special interest'' groups for blocking attempts
to cap entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social
Security. ``He's right,'' said Perot.
   ``There's a wonderful phenomenon going on here around
all of these special interests, and I think there can be
some good balancing out of that, specifically on the
entitlements and so forth,'' Perot said. ``We now have a
new huge groundswell coming up of the 18- to 40-year-olds
who are mad as the devil and are not going to take it
anymore because we're spending their money. Now ... if
they ever get organized, they have a secret weapon....
Some of the people who created this problem, by and large,
are their parents. They will sit down with mom, dad,
grandmother, and granddad and, on a private basis, get a
lot of this straightened out, because no mother and father
can look their children in the eye and say, `Sure, we're
taking your money and we're proud of it.' That's democracy
at work.''
   If the baby boomers in fact do what Perot advocates,
and gang up on their parents and grandparents in a show of
social Darwinian force, Lamm's predictions will indeed
come true. Ironically, Lamm's brave new world will soon
destroy the rest of the population, which will be
systematically weeded out by such epidemics as AIDS and
diseases of poverty that an increasingly triaged health
care system will be unable to combat.

>From  Executive Intelligence Review, V19, #15.


----
Please respond by e-mail as I get very far behind in reading this
newsgroup.

         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com





------






                                ******

             End of Issue # 2558 of the Handicap Digest

                                ******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU