UK National Health Care Using Death Panels to Starve Babies to Death

It’s never too late to start aborting babies. Never too late at all. And nationalized health care means frantically cutting costs by deeming some life to be… in the classic National Socialist phrase… unworthy of life.

But we are all Socialists now. We are all Nazis now. At least those of us who vote monstrous systems like this into power and then look away from the atrocities that our governments commit.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

But don’t worry. Michelle Bachmann is just a crazy person. This will never come to America. It can’t happen here.

Liverpool Care Pathway is something that Americans need to know about. It should have been a talking point in the debate about ObamaCare. It should have been a talking point in this election.

People need to know what’s coming.

  • http://twitter.com/Kenrick66 @Kenrick66

    Nazi extermination policies weren't just for Jews, gypsies and Slavs. The Nazis murdered thousands of mentally defective and mentally ill German children, and also "put down" as many physically disabled Germans as they could lay hands on. They were all costs to the State, as well as embarrassing reminders that the "Aryan" race wasn't as "pure" as Hitler imagined or would like to have Germans believe it was.

    • Mary Sue

      And yet Nazi-ism is considered "right wing" and "christian"!

      And yet who is it that wants to do all this stuff? Godless Left wingers.

      Now that's twisting history like a pro.

      • southwood

        But there are also many on the right who are pro choice. Abortion is not right or left wing.

        • Mary Sue

          besides that. I'm talking flat out euthanasia.

          • southwood

            Some on the right support that too. The libertarians are the weak link in the chain.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Some on the right support that too."

            Some? Statistically significant? Are you talking anecdotally or do you have some important information to share? Of course there are exceptions. There are no conservative leaders who support euthanasia, and few constituents.

            "The libertarians are the weak link in the chain."

            You count libertarians as on the right? They're so far to the right that they generally end up in the radical left wing camp. Why? Because anarchists don't want to conserve. They also want to destroy. The difference being what they expect or hope to come after. They want "smaller government' but not to "conserve" what we have. They want it so small that you won't have anything you recognize. They are very often delusional Utopian dreamers with few practical ideas. Sound familiar?

          • southwood

            "Some? Statistically significant? Are you talking anecdotally or do you have some important information to share? Of course there are exceptions. There are no conservative leaders who support euthanasia, and few constituents. "

            How "significant" is it when 75% of Americans support euthanasia according to a Gallup poll ? Are you going to tell me that none of them are on the right ? LOL. According to the same poll a majority of Christians support euthanasia. Your second point of contention reinforces my argument. Libertarians regard themselves often as on the right. That's a fact. What qualms would a libertarian have about euthanasia ? Very few.

            Where did you get the insane idea that libertarians are anarchists ?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How "significant" is it when 75% of Americans support euthanasia according to a Gallup poll ? "

            I'd like to see the poll details. If you want to talk about elective euthanasia specifically, you might be right but you didn't speak to the topic at hand, which is coerced euthanasia, including abortion.

            "What qualms would a libertarian have about euthanasia ? Very few."

            Pay attention psycho. We're talking about coerced euthanasia by the state. Any libertarian who supports that doesn't know what his self-labeling even means. They might have some things in common (medically assisted death), but the topic is about euthanasia as murder either by or with the assistance of the state. If we weren't explicit enough for you, then work on reading comprehension or let us know when you plan to change the subject.

            "Where did you get the insane idea that libertarians are anarchists ?"

            Their own mouths. Did you read what I wrote, or skip through like you apparently do everything else you read. Did you not understand?

            If you fail to see the connection, what can I say about your comprehension again? Libertarians want limited government or no government. Do you deny this? Anarchists want no government, but will tolerate some government. Explain the difference in practice. Any arguments from you?

            Some libertarians who are politically active are really trying to steer one party or the other. They're either Republicans who care about some issue they'd like to see changed, or they'd like a more aggressive move towards a hands-off policy or policies, but essentially they don't stray that far from the party line. They are "relatively libertarian" but basically mainstream. If they identify themselves as straight up libertarian, they're either trying to make an extreme point or they're delusional about the implications of their ideology.

            Other libertarians identify with the Democratic Party, or worse, find it too tame. Given how radical the Democratic Party already is, that is no trivial detail. Numbers-wise, most libertarians are delusional anarchists regardless of their rhetoric, and I'm talking about the implications of their ideology, not their own self-identification.

            The fact that some people support "euthanasia" or abortion DOES NOT support your statement, "Abortion is not right or left wing."

            It's absolutely leftist, but in politics even in absolute terms there are always a few who disagree with the mainstream. So qualify your statement better. You'd have been ok if you stopped after the first sentence (and I'll quote you as a courtesy…hint), "But there are also many on the right who are pro choice" because that statement is true. You didn't. You painted yourself in to a corner.

            You're insane if you think abortion is a non-partisan issue. Few on the right or the left would agree with your statement. Exceptions don't actually prove rules the way you seem to think they do.

            I sense you're simply an outcast who wants to be pro-abortion and on the right. Fine. I'm not saying you're alone, you're just not in line with the main stream of the party. That's your right. But you don't get to be delusional about it without hearing replies to false statements you make.

          • southwood

            Here's the poll :
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/16333/three-four-ameri

            I was talking about euthanasia, coerced or non-coerced. That does make a difference if we are talking about libertarians.

            Then you state again that libertarians are anarchists, but they can be "mainstream". Eh ? Can anarchists be mainstream too ? Libertarians are not anarchists. I see no explanation of how they can be, except in extreme cases, from your definition. Some libertarians want a conservative government which allows them such freedoms as to have SSM or smoke pot legally. Does that make them anarchists ? They might still be fiscal conservatives. Is Ron Paul an anarchist ?

            I never said abortion or euthanasia was non-partisan, in terms of party politics, merely that those on the right can and sometimes do, support these actions. Explain how it is "absolutely leftist" ? Pro abortionists describe it as being "pro-choice". Since when was choice a leftist privilege ? I personally don't agree that it is pro-choice since the foetus has NO choice but that is a moral issue. There is also the argument from some on the right that some impoverished drug dependent mothers should be forced to abort. I have seen that argument. Is that a leftist stance. I don't think it is necessarily.

        • saltNlight

          Excuse me. I will not let you get away with assigning blame equally to the left and the right when it comes to pro-choice demands. While pro-choice Republicans do exist, they are absolutely in the minority on the right. You cannot say the same thing for the Democrats, who DEMAND that abortion is funded by the taxpayer.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Excuse me. I will not let you get away with assigning blame equally to the left and the right when it comes to pro-choice demands."

            Indeed. Welcome to the world of the sane.

            These days you can say almost anything and use liberal vocabulary to back your argument. The moon is made of cheese, in a sort of way.

          • southwood

            Who said I was assigning blame equally ? But it is a fact, as you admit, that pro-choice people exist on the right

      • Mary

        Natzi-ism was in no way Christian. Hitler hated Christians as much as he hated Jews. He used the Christians for his own gain, then once he gained control that was it, the fangs came out.

        • southwood

          Nazism was everything Christianity is against. If Hitler favoured any religion it seems to have been Islam. But some Christian hating Jews like to call Christians Nazis. There is actually a rabbi in Israel who is exulting over the coming take over of Europe by Islam because it will punish ( for Nazism, the pogroms, the Inquisition and other "Christian" crimes ), and suppress, Christianity. Can you believe that ? That's like the guy who stood cheering as his house went up in flames. When asked why he was happy to see his home on fire, he said, " It's payback for the cockroaches" !

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But some Christian hating Jews like to call Christians Nazis."

            Just about everyone on the planet uses that term to insult people and to try to demonize them beyond defense.

            "There is actually a rabbi in Israel who is exulting over the coming take over of Europe by Islam because it will punish ( for Nazism, the pogroms, the Inquisition and other "Christian" crimes ), and suppress, Christianity. Can you believe that ?"

            There are crazy deluded people of all stripes. Yes, I believe it.

          • southwood

            '"But some Christian hating Jews like to call Christians Nazis."

            Just about everyone on the planet uses that term to insult people and to try to demonize them beyond defense.'

            Usually the term used to insult, particularly right wing people, is "fascist", "Nazi" less often. However Jews are a special case. They never use the term "fascist" when denigrating or reproaching Christians. They use the term "Nazi" because that is precisely what they mean. They are saying that the Nazis were Christian. In fact, in Israel when the Orthodox Haredim harass Christians they tell them to go to Germany.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "They are saying that the Nazis were Christian."

            Muslims say this frequently.

            "In fact, in Israel when the Orthodox Haredim harass Christians they tell them to go to Germany."

            Well OK if you've got some personal or obscure knowledge, that's fine, but really you need to some times qualify your comments unless you want people to probe what you're talking about.

            People in general will occasionally say almost any nonsensical thing if they believe it will convey their emotions-of-the-moment. In the world today, trying to think rationally is often considered cold…or even..Nazi-like. Which is pretty crazy.

          • Chavi Beck

            Funny thing, I never heard of Haredi protestors harassing Christians; they're kept pretty busy harassing the secular Jewish government. You might mean harassing those Christians who come to Israel for the purpose of converting Jews to Christianity. From the Jewish religious point of view, that's not a whole lot better than killing Jews, hence the (possible) comparison to Nazis (which I don't by any means endorse, just as I don't endorse any other stupid thing bored teenagers shout at adversaries they know nothing about).

        • Chavi Beck

          Nazism was in no way Christian — true. Hitler hated Christianity — true. Many, many, many Christians in Europe supported Hitler's murder of Jews — true, undeniable fact, I'm sorry but it is a fact. Christians today are peaceful and generally not anti-semitic (especially as compared to Muslims) and I don't fault anyone for the actions of their predecessors, but the fact is that those who carried the flag of Christianity from the time of its founding until the 1960s included a great many who were willing to kill Jews. You can say their actions were un-Christian but you can't say they weren't Christians… If you want to disown them all you will need a new name for your religion.

  • pagegl

    It's just another way to realize Margaret Sanger's goal of perfecting the species, to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It's just another way to realize Margaret Sanger's goal of perfecting the species, to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit"."

      Yeah, but starvation of infants? Next they'll justify active torture as purifying their souls? I'm still a little in shock that people have no been arrested over this. All the officers are busy looking for people who are carrying non halal food with intent to upset religious feelings.

      • pagegl

        For people of that ilk the ends justifies the means. However they reach their goal is irrelevant to them; starving babies has got to be way easier than finding other means to eliminate unwanted masses later.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "For people of that ilk the ends justifies the means. However they reach their goal is irrelevant to them; starving babies has got to be way easier than finding other means to eliminate unwanted masses later."

          Yeah, but everyone has limits. Babies? Western doctors who professed to follow their oath? I knew that oath had been revised, at this point I think we need to hear what oath they take there in the UK these days. OTOH, oaths are no longer taken seriously. Congressmen can take an oath of loyalty on the Koran, so clearly no oath matters to Congress, why should it matter to anyone else then?

          • pagegl

            What are the limits for someone who doesn't have the honor to obey an oath they take. Arguably, we could impeach Obama for disregarding his oath of office. And, as you point out, that is probably true for many members of Congress regardless of political affiliation. Until people in power are required to honor their oath of office we will continue down the path we are on. Or, maybe the people will have to find a way to force them to honor their oaths.

  • jakespoon

    Herr Dr. Mengele would approve. Ja!

  • Mary Sue

    Michael Schaivo would approve as well (ugh).

  • matt

    Where in the hell is America going?? My God where? when will we turn around? Please America, turn around now before its too late!!! In Gods name turn around!!

  • BS77

    What a nightmare. England is finished. England is an absurd, sick society based on Animal Farm Marxism, welfare socialism, and submission to radical immigrants , insane policies and agendas. Pity the FOOLS. England used to be "masters of the seas'….and the sun never set on the British Empire…now look at it….a dumpy, astronomically taxed bureaucratic nightmare. England….break the chains and LIVE!!!!

  • Rick Cross

    Our only hope is for an external force, a country devoted to freedom, liberty, justice and individual rights comes to battle and liberate us from those evil forces like they did in World War II. Oh wait… That was us. Never mind, we're doomed.

    • Mary Sue

      Your only hope now is…….

      CANADA.

      ph34r.

  • Ghostwriter

    That's terrible! Why would ANYONE want something like that? That doesn't sound like anything I want in my health care.

    • jakespoon

      Coming to hospital near you.

  • EyesWideOpen7

    The health system in the UK is an abomination. GP's are now drawing up their hit lists! This "campaign" has a name – The Find Your 1% campaign – (identify your patients that are on their "last legs") – it is calculated and chilling and they are twisting it to make it sound like they CARE that you have a "good DEATH" – what about a good LIFE, and the care and preservation of LIFE?! People that are a little more frail, and often actually have no illness or disease, are being picked off by the vultures of our "wonderful" NHS. The Liverpool Care Pathway is another one of these sordid plans with the intention of taking life, often prematurely, and should be renamed "LICENCE TO KILL".

    Please read this petition and support it if you can – http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/LiverpoolCarePat

  • watchman

    its disgusting to put newborn babies on this liverpool care pathway, which was administerd by marie cure hospice and the royal yes royal liverpool hostpital to put terminally ill patients on it with only hours to live, but is not scientifically possible so the professors of medicine tell us i am sure they must have great knowledge of this subject, but to put babies on this back door murder is horrendous and is unforgivable what next the gas ovens or is that already taking place by the backdoor, come on cameron this is being done while you are the prime minister.

  • Lynn Bullock

    Agenda 21!!?? Please go to he United Nations website and see what it is all about. Attacks that this is all a conspiracy theory, it is? Read for yourself, and realize, it is happening right now in your city America! Get envolved if you want to stop stuff like babies and old sick people being starved, and dehydrated to death. It's already coming to the smallest cities and towns, and in some, it is already there, and people don't even know it's there. Speak to your city counsil, managers, etc. Again, don't believe it?, go to the UN's own website, don't take our word for it, educate yourself! NOW!! I wish we could solicite some of these self proclaimed genius's to REALLY educate themselves and stop parroting for the liberal left extremists.

    • Mark burn

      I thought everyone. Knew that policy's such as the Liverpool pathway are the norm in the USA pretty much 100 per cent in hospices
      My mother in law died recently in mass USA it was explained that dying is a natural process we eat drink to live but to do so in the final stages of dying only increases the pain of the patient in order to make their familly feel better I researched and found this is the view of almost all healthcare profesionals specialising in end of life care not just in the uk but throughout the western world
      It is not a conspiricy of socialised medine or death panels acting on behalf of the medical insurance companies in the USA tho I dare say they are keen on it I believe it is the end of life path that dedicated doctors and nurses have found to be the most humane way to allow an individual to complete their life with dignity