Aktion T4 - American Style

Eugenics & Euthanasia
 Go Hand-in-Hand

World Governments
 Begin Declaring Themselves God


Nazi propaganda for Nazi Germany's T-4 Euthanasia Program:
 "This person suffering from hereditary defects
 costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime.
Fellow German, that is your money, too."


For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)


Aktion T4

June 1, 2008
From Wikipedia

     Action T4 (Aktion T4) was the official name of the Nazi Germany eugenics program which forcefully conducted euthanasia on Germans who were institutionalized or suffering from birth defects. In total, an estimated 200,000 people were killed as a result of the program. The T4 program of the Nazis was extended to killing of concentration camp inmates when Philipp Bouhler, the head of the T4 program, allowed Heinrich Himmler to utilize T4 doctors, staff and facilities to kill concentration camp prisoners who were "most seriously ill" in a program designated "14f13."

     Prior to and during World War II, the Nazis carried out an involuntary euthanasia program, largely in secret. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code-named Action T4, killed children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity or other debilitating problems which they considered gave the disabled child "life unworthy of life.” This program was later extended to include older children and adults. Inmates of mental asylums in Germany and Austria would be transported to an intermediate facility, from where they would be re-transported to one of six killing centres.

     The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu"-meaning good and "thatos"-meaning death, which combined means “well-death” or "dying well.” Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.” Despite this, the ancient Greeks and Romans generally did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life.

     The first major effort to legalize euthanasia in the United States arose as part of the eugenics movement in the early years of the twentieth century. In an article in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Brown University historian Jacob M. Appel documented extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio in 1906. Euthanasia societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive euthanasia. Although, in 1937 euthanasia legislation did not pass in the U.S., doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. During this period, euthanasia proposals were sometimes mixed with eugenics. While some proponents focused on voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, others expressed interest in involuntary euthanasia for certain eugenic motivations (e.g., mentally "defective"). During this same era, meanwhile, U.S. court trials tackled cases involving critically ill people who requested physician assistance in dying as well as “mercy killings,” such as by parents of their severely disabled children.


Post-War History

     Due to outrage over Nazi euthanasia, in the 1940s and 1950s there was very little public support for euthanasia, especially for any involuntary, eugenics-based proposals. A key turning point in the debate over voluntary euthanasia (and physician assisted dying), at least in the United States, was the public furor over the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. The Quinlan case paved the way for legal protection of voluntary passive euthanasia. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 for a murder displayed on television.

     Also in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1994, Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act, permitting doctors to assist terminal patients with six months or less to live to end their lives. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed such laws in 1997. The Bush administration failed in its attempt to use drug laws to stop Oregon in 2001, in the case Gonzales v. Oregon. In 1999, non-aggressive euthanasia was permitted in Texas. Most recently, amid U.S. government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who was in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband (married to another woman at this time) had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will. The rest of her family claimed otherwise (who were willing to pay for her treatment to keep her alive).



Plan Transforms Doctors From Healers To Killers

State Bill Mandates Physicians Tell Patients About Assisted Suicide

May 30, 2008
Plan transforms doctors from healers to killers
State bill mandates physicians tell patients about assisted suicide

     By just two votes, the California State Assembly passed a bill yesterday that detractors say allows doctors to push patients toward medically assisted suicide. The bill, AB 2747, enables doctors to provide a patient declared to have less than one year to live with a long list of end-of-life options, including a last-moments option that looks suspiciously like euthanasia. Critics of the bill point to a provision that adds "palliative sedation" and VSED (voluntary stopping of eating and drinking) to a patient's end-of-life options, extreme measures that have been previously reserved for patients within a few hours to a few days of death.

     If the bill becomes law, critics say, a doctor could pronounce a patient within a year of death, encourage him to consider complete (sometimes irreversible) sedation, then proceed with VSED until the patient, unconscious and unaware, is starved and dehydrated to death. In effect, the critics argue, this is physician-assisted suicide for anyone deemed "within a year of death."

     The bill itself states that "lack of communication between health care providers and their terminally ill patients can cause problems" and that "those problems are complicated by social issues, such as cultural and religious pressures." Further, "a recent survey found that providers that object to certain practices are less likely than others to believe they have an obligation to present all of the options to patients and refer patients to other providers." "Some people are told they have a year to live," he points out, "then go on to live healthily for 12." "Drying up and shriveling to death through dehydration is a fate worse than lethal injection," says Thomasson. "By transforming palliative sedation into a vehicle for assisted suicide, AB 2747 would transform doctors and nurses from healers and comforters into killers."


The Next Holocaust

Attitudes Which Spawned Nazi Genocide Grow In American Society

May 21, 2008
The Next Holocaust
Attitudes Which Spawned Nazi Genocide Grow In American Society
From Cutting Edge

     "In theory, a year of human life is priceless. In reality, it's worth $50,000. That's the international standard most private and government-run health insurance plans worldwide use to determine whether to cover a new medical procedure. More simply, insurance companies calculate that to make a treatment worth its cost, it must guarantee one year of "quality life" for $50,000 or less." "Quality of Life" is a German/Nazi term which resulted in the genocide of almost 20 million devalued people from 1920-1945 throughout Europe. Cutting Edge has been writing against this Western return to this demonic concept for the past 10 years.

     Let us quote from a 1992 Radio Program, CE1066, entitled, "America's Continued Slide Into Hitler's Nazism."  In Germany, beginning approximately 10 years before Adolf Hitler gained power, certain German doctors began to assist in suicides of people who were terminally ill. Also, in that time, thinking moral people were troubled, but they found they could not effectively argue against this practice on the same grounds that we cannot argue today: If a rational adult suffering from a terminal illness decides that they want to end their life because, in their opinion, they no longer have a proper "Quality Of Life," they have that right. And, when many of them turned to their physician for assistance, the German general public "understood.”

     History records that this beginning culminated some 25 years later in one of the most massive, and certainly, the most effective, genocide ever, popularly known as the "Holocaust.”  This moral slide is chronicled quite clearly in a book entitled, "The Nazi Doctors," by Robert J. Lifton. Lifton states quite clearly that the Nazi Holocaust could never have occurred had it not been for the conditioning of the German people by this Euthanasia Campaign. Lifton lists several steps which occurred after the beginning stage of doctor-assisted suicides of terminally ill patients, culminating in the gas chambers and ovens of the Holocaust. These steps are:

1) At the beginning, people who were suffering from fatal diseases personally decided that they did not have proper "Quality of Life," and asked their doctor to assist them in committing suicide.

2) Once the killing began under these circumstances, many doctors throughout Germany began to decide on their own when a person under their care was suffering such a decline in "Quality of Life" that they no longer "deserved" to live. Doctors killed such people as the handicapped, the mentally ill, and the mentally deficient, using a deliberate misapplication of medical technology, so that the uninformed simply believed that the cause of death was natural.

3) The next step in public medical suicides was the responsibility in deciding when a person should be put to death because of declining "Quality of Life" was expanded to include the family members of the victim.

4) Step four was the further expanding of those people who could make the life-and-death decision for the terminally ill. At this point, committees of doctors and other medical personnel, plus individuals from the local area, were empowered to make the decision as to whether a person should be put to death. The major change at this point is that the perceived role of the doctor changed, from simply a healer and a helper to an authority figure who "helped" when he decided to kill. Thus, the traditional role of the 'healer doctor' was reversed, and "healing" became redefined as killing those people who no longer had the desired "Quality of Life."

5) Then, abruptly, the rules were changed again, allowing the doctor in charge to make the decision for the individual. This was a significant change because the doctor was an authority figure. Thus, it was very easy to move into step 6,

6) Where the Government could make the decision as to who would die and when.

     At this point, the entire apparatus of the government -- Hitler's government -- was thrown into the genocide effort. Even though a doctor was always the one who seemed to make the "Quality of Life" choice, the reality was that faceless government officials throughout Germany were making those decisions. How close is this situation to happen in America? Fifteen years ago, a survivor of the Nazi Death Camps wrote a book he could not get published. Dr. Wolfensberger wrote, "The New Genocide of Handicapped And Afflicted People." Dr. Wolfensberger stated that the time had arrived when loved ones of a "devalued person" had better sit at the bedside 24 hours a day, watching what the doctor is doing and what he is prescribing. Otherwise, your loved one might not make it out of the hospital alive!


The Value of a Human Life: $129,000

May 20, 2008
The Value of a Human Life: $129,000
By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY  Brooke Fasani / CorbisArticle

     In theory, a year of human life is priceless. In reality, it's worth $50,000

     That's the international standard most private and government-run health insurance plans worldwide use to determine whether to cover a new medical procedure. More simply, insurance companies calculate that to make a treatment worth its cost, it must guarantee one year of "quality life" for $50,000 or less. New research, however, would argue that that figure is far too low.

Nazi propaganda for Nazi Germany's T-4 Euthanasia Program:
 "This person suffering from hereditary defects
 costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime.
Fellow German, that is your money, too."

     Stanford economists have demonstrated that the average value of a year of quality human life is actually closer to about $129,000. To get to that number, Stefanos Zenios and his colleagues at Stanford Graduate School of Business used kidney dialysis as a benchmark. Every year dialysis saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who would otherwise die of renal failure while waiting for an organ transplant. It is also the one procedure that Medicare has covered unconditionally since 1972 despite rapid and sometimes expensive innovations in its administration. To tally the cost-effectiveness of such innovations Zenios and his colleagues ran a computer analysis of more than half a million patients who underwent dialysis, adding up costs and comparing that data to treatment outcomes. Considering both inflation and new technologies in dialysis, they arrived at $129,000 as a more appropriate threshold for deciding coverage. "That means that if Medicare paid an additional $129,000 to treat a group of patients, on average, group members would get one more quality-adjusted life year," Zenios says. Based on patient surveys, one "quality of life" year is defined as about two years of life on dialysis.

     Zenios's conclusions arrive amidst mounting debate over whether Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for seniors, ought to use cost-effectiveness analysis in determining coverage of procedures. Nearly all other industrial nations — including Canada, Britain and the Netherlands — ration health care based on cost-effectiveness and the $50,000 threshold. Medicare, on the other hand, decides whether to pay for new technology based on whether a treatment is "medically necessary and appropriate." But as health care expenses rise and entitlement programs grow fiscally strapped — at least one part of Medicare is now expected to be bankrupt by 2019 — more and more academics have called for this approach to be reconsidered, and for cost to become a factor. Such a move would mean that "if the incremental cost of a new technology was more than the threshold," Zenios says, "then the recommendation would be that Medicare not cover that new technology."

     Assigning a dollar figure to Medicare patients' lives may sound crass, but such valuations are routine in Americans' daily lives. Take, for example, the $500,000 death benefit the government pays families when a soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the cost calculations that for-profit health insurers make to determine how much coverage they'll give customers. In fact, at least some Americans seem at ease with allowing money to play a prominent role in health care decisions. In a 2007 survey of New Yorkers, 75% of participants felt "somewhat" to "very" comfortable with allowing cost to inform Medicare treatment decisions, once they understood how the system worked. "It is difficult to justify the burden and expense of dialysis when persons have other serious health conditions such as, for example, advanced dementia or cancer," says co-author Glenn Chertow, a nephrology professor at the Stanford School of Medicine. "In these settings, dialysis is unlikely to provide any meaningful benefit." But with organs including kidneys for transplant so scarce, is it justifiable to deny these patients a chance to live through dialysis? It is a question, Zenios says, everyone should approach with trepidation. "What is the true value of a human life? That's what we're asking people," he adds. "I wouldn't pretend to know."


For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)


Oregon’s Euthanasia Law

It’s About Far More Than The Number of People Dying

Apr 21 2008
Oregon’s Euthanasia Law
It’s About Far More Than The Number of People Dying
By Susan W. Enouen, P.E.

      California, Hawaii, Arizona, Vermont and Wisconsin have all faced assisted-suicide bills in their legislatures this year, and for some of these states it has been an ongoing attempt for several years. As assisted-suicide proponents continue to lobby for this legislation, their language has evolved into less threatening-sounding terms. Rather than “physician assisted suicide,” the phrase is “physician aid in dying” or PAD, so physicians now “induce PAD.” In fact, the DHS has been threatened with litigation if the state continues to use the word “suicide.” Other euphemisms include “patient choice,” “control at end of life,” “assisted death” and “death with dignity.” This is all part of a program to help people think of it as a compassionate approach to death.

     Where will the Oregon experiment go from here? The Netherlands’ experience has shown that acceptance of assisted suicide can lead to involuntary euthanasia of the disabled and dying, which can lead to legal euthanasia. This melds easily into illegal but accepted euthanasia of disabled and dying babies. It is then just a small baby step to legalize the infanticide of such “suffering” little ones. This is where the thinking in The Netherlands has gone in the past 30 years. As Wesley J. Smith, an anti-euthanasia advocate, author, and an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, says about the euthanasia movement: “euthanasia and assisted suicide have gone… from the unthinkable, to the debatable, to the justifiable, on its way to unexceptional.”


Killing Babies, Compassionately

The Netherlands Follows In Germany's Footsteps

Killing Babies, Compassionately
The Netherlands follows in Germany's footsteps
by Wesley J. Smith

     AT LAST A HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children." Unsurprisingly, the Dutch, ever prickly about international criticism of their peculiar institution, were outraged. Giovanardi's critique cut so deeply that even Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende felt the need to respond, sniffing, "This [Giovanardi's assertion] is scandalous and unacceptable. This is not the way to get along in Europe." As is often the case in the New Europe, what is said matters more than what is done. Thus, the prime minister of the Netherlands thinks that killing babies because they are born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions is not a scandal, but daring to point out accurately that German doctors did the same during World War II, is.

     That being noted, one wishes Giovanardi had thought twice before raising the Nazi specter. Partly, this is because nothing we are talking about today matches the scope or magnitude of Nazi crimes. As a result, accusing people of Nazi-like behavior allows those amply deserving of moral condemnation to deflect reproaches. Thus, Giovanardi says that killing disabled babies is what the Nazis did, and the Dutch merely retort that they are not Nazis. Still, the "Nazi" analogy is worth exploring, precisely because it is unequivocally true that German doctors did kill thousands of disabled babies, for which a few such physicians were hanged at Nuremberg. Dutch apologists know this, of course. But they claim that the Netherlands' infant euthanasia program is substantially different: Dutch doctors are motivated by compassion whereas the Germans' were motivated by the bigotry of racial hygiene. Of course it is the act of killing disabled and dying babies that is wrong, not the motivation. But even leaving that aside, the Dutch defense is not as persuasive as Prime Minister Balkenende would like to believe.


German Euthanasia 1938-1945

     THE SEEDS OF GERMAN EUTHANASIA were planted in 1920 in the book Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Leben). Its authors were two of the most respected academics in their respective fields: Karl Binding was a renowned law professor, and Alfred Hoche a physician and humanitarian. The authors accepted wholeheartedly that people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life." More than that, the authors professionalized and medicalized the concept and, according to Robert Jay Lifton in The Nazi Doctors, promoted euthanasia in these circumstances as "purely a healing treatment" and a "healing work"--justified as a splendid way to relieve suffering while saving money spent on caring for the disabled. Over the years Binding and Hoche's attitudes percolated throughout German society and became accepted widely. These attitudes were stoked enthusiastically by the Nazis so that by 1938 the German government received an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely disabled infants and young children seeking permission to end their lives.

He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death (Psalm 68:20).

 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds... (Job 14:5).

     And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment... (Heb 9:27). God is the One who chooses the time of a person's death, not man. When men start to decided when an innocent person should die they are taking the place of God in this matter. They will be brought into judgment for murder. The only reasons given in the Bible to take another person's life are 1.) Capital punishment, 2.) Self-Defense, and 3.) A government role as a soldier in time of a just war. God does not give men and governments the choice to murder someone based on their health or "quality of life." That includes an innocent child inside the womb of his or her mother. God will decide when a person is to lose their life.

     Euthanasia has a more palatable name applied to the practice so people will accept the murder. Euthanasia is accepted in society today with the attitude that it is not a slippery slope. How many times has that been said? --Cloning was accepted with the attitude it will not become a slippery slope into more evil practices. However, England is now experimenting with mixed human and animal embryos. The science community declared they would never fall down that slippery slope into such an evil practice. However, the populace has forgotten the promise and now accepts the evil practice. No matter how much a society denies the thought that they will not fall down a slippery slope into more evil practices, they do. Ungodly science and government just wait until society has forgotten what they have promised.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26)

Return to Archive