Sign in / Join
1994

EU-thanasia: Medical Murder Is Here, And It’s Your ‘Right’

A protester holds up a sign during a demonstration against a new law authorizing euthanasia for children, in Brussels February 11, 2014. REUTERS/Laurent Dubrule

Former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev once called the European Union (EU) the “new European Soviet” and for good reason: unelected, all-powerful agencies with democratic-sounding names that evoke freedom are now deciding when living, breathing children should be medically killed.

The EU even declared it a “right.” Except that the “right” to die usually doesn’t get exercised by many citizens willingly — so the EU is helping things along.

Newborn Charlie Gard has won hearts all over the world, including that of President Trump, after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that he must be “allowed to die with dignity,” or murdered, by hospital staff in the U.K.

“That’s what single payer looks like,” remarked Vice President Mike Pence in a recent radio interview.

Pence continued: “We hope that the single-payer system in England will see its way clear to allow the … mother and the father to be able to choose the greatest extent of lifesaving treatment that’s available to their child instead of having to be submitted to a government program that … has decided that the prospects of their life are such that they no longer warrant an investment in health services.”

Parents raised $1.8 million to life-flight little Charlie out of the EU’s deathly clutches and into the U.S. Moreover, a British judge capitulated (in part) Friday, July 14, allowing a U.S. doctor to “examine” little Charlie in London. In any case, these facts are irrelevant to defending an infant’s “right to life.”

The ECHR’s Charlie Gard ruling exposes the EU as a nascent replication of the worst totalitarian experiments in history.

Although the marketing may be new, medical murder as a political tool is not a new idea.

In Nazi Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people “judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination” or those “unworthy of life.” 5,000 of these victims were children. The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of “medical experts.” Thousands were sterilized. By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially “unfit.”

Alternatively, Soviet Russia made “health,” not merely “healthcare,” a constitutional right, and subsequently proceeded to require hospitals to maintain a fixed “death rate” in order to make sure medical services were “equal.”

By calling murder a “right” (as in Soviet Russia) or “merciful” (as in Nazi Germany), moral and legal impediments to genocide become more malleable.

Since Nazism is decidedly out of vogue, the EU has adopted workers’ paradise mantras as the vehicle to introduce the possibility of genocide in a new century.

Government was responsible for non-war related deaths exceeding 100 million in the 20th Century, 80 million by Communist governments alone.

That is why, in matters of life and death, patients and doctors (not bureaucrats) must be in charge. Government — when left unchecked — views humans as liabilities, not patients. A system like that embraced by the EU is historically disastrous, as evidenced by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The medical profession becomes “the harbinger of death, not health.”

For those who may doubt the logic of such suppositions, consider that Holland’s healthcare system — the admitted model for the European Union’s new medical utopia — is so cash-strapped, that patients undergoing simple procedures must formally request “no euthanasia.”

In fact, involuntary euthanasia accounts for many thousands of deaths in Holland annually. In addition, over 8,000 people in Holland die every year because they are given intentional overdoses of pain medication, not to control pain, but to end life, according to the Dutch government’s official report in 1994 (the last such investigation.) In 60 percent of these cases, the patient did not give his or her consent to the action.

Holland even has a committee to decide who’s expendable. It schedules children, adults — anyone, theoretically — for euthanasia.

And the Dutch are broadening the scope of euthanasia, extending the “right to die” all the way down to 12-year-olds, no parental consent required. If minors can get an abortion without consent, why can’t they kill themselves?

Holland is also the first European country to legalize euthanasia for newborns. In some countries, killing newborns is still considered infanticide. Recall that an abortionist was jailed in the United States for throwing a live baby in a dumpster.

And as Holland continues in the destruction of its Dutch population, the name “Mohammed” is becoming the most popular name for newborns in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. The little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, will soon be a little Moroccan boy with a bomb.

And the European Union is clearly following Holland’s example, as the ECHR “right to die” decision ordering Charlie Gard to be medically killedclearly illustrates.

For anyone who has read the EU’s own Charter of Fundamental Rights (a monumental misnomer), the Soviet-style death edict coming out of the ECHR last week is unsurprising. In point of fact, the Charter outlines explicit procedures for curtailing the freedom of certain classes of persons, paving the way for genocide.

The Charter, which paradoxically is supposed to grant rights to European citizens, contains a provision that reads:

“Limitations [on individual liberty] may be made … if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

In other words, freedom can be taken away for any reason European bureaucrats determine. Scary.

“… it is well established in the case law of the Court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organization of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community … .”

The rights of the individual have arguably been subordinated to the collective interests of the state — Soviet Communism on steroids.

Nothing is new under the sun. The Soviet Bill of Rights was full of fine print and exit clauses too.

“Enjoyment of the freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state.”

Within this context, it can be said that fundamental rights in Europe are fundamentally in danger.

“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Time will tell who “needs” to live and who “needs” to die, but history shows the results to be bloody and tragic.