**A Post by Shifra**

Remember when all the Liberals apologized to Sarah Palin for mocking her use of the term “death panels” when it came to ObamaCare?

Yeah, neither do I.

But I’ll tell you what I do remember:

Two years ago, I heard Paul Krugman, economist, NYT writer and Uber-Liberal, on a Sunday talk-show, explaining that the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control by the use of “debt panels.”

“What’s a ‘debt panel?’” I wondered. And didn’t it sound like “death panel?”

I began to worry about my hearing. Maybe I needed to see a good ENT person.

I was thinking about this as I read this UK Daily Mail article.

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

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

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

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’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

And I had an epiphany: You know how Liberals love to call the Tea Party “Nazis” ?

It’s all a projection.

Prematurely ending the lives of disabled babies? It’s enough to make Dr. Josef Mengele (the “Angel Of Death of Auschwitz”) smile.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. MaryVal says:

    It was inevitable. It’s a very, very short step from passive euthanasia to active euthanasia. This “medical” treatment is coming to a hospital near you. Remember Terri Shiavo.

  2. Maynard says:

    This cuts to the heart of the problem with government-controlled healhcare: The government will necessarily have control over our most personal and intimate decisions. Every question, ranging from whether your baby should live to how much salt we can eat becomes a matter of government policy, with rules issued by unelected bureaucrats. Do I have to explain why this is dehumanizing?

    Advocates of government control believe that panels of experts will make choices that are fundamentally correct, so anyone who opposes those choices is behaving unreasonably and should be overridden. (Example: In supporting the ban on incandescent bulbs, Obama’s Energy Sec’y Chu said: “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”) It’s an alien concept to such people that others may reasonably disagree. How can you coexist with a class of mandarins that feels duty-bound to come crashing into your life this way? My point is that anyone can coexist with me because I may be stupid and dangerous but I have no power to impose my stupidity on others; government, on the other hand, is stupid and dangerous and acts with coercive force.

    This may be a horrible thing for me to say, but I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the logic of withholding medical treatment from a doomed infant. I can imagine a family that is torn emotionally if not financially, and simply cannot deal with the stress of watching their child go through an agonizing death process, artificially prolonged by modern technology. There are times to stop the treatment. In my own paperwork, I’ve left instructions to prevent me from being maintained under hopeless and inhuman conditions. But the point is, these are personal decisions. That we live or die based upon government budgeting and political pull — this is a monstrous thing, and not the way we do things in America. Or at least, not until now.

    A generation ago, people were marching in favor of lifting restrictions on abortions. Their slogan was, “My body, my choice,” and they had a point. Are these really the same people now insisting that our bodies be controlled by the government?

  3. Cernunnos81 says:

    There is one major driving reason for the Left to do things like this. (This is written as if one of Them were explaining it) In a Communist/Socialist “Utopia” we are all just “workers”. And in that utopia all workers are “resources” in and of themselves. If a worker cannot “produce” then they are of no use to the state and the state will not expend its own resources in order to support that worker. Food and water are also resources in this view and as they are finite they will not be “wasted” on those who cannot produce. The elderly, ill or disabled are of no use to the state and therefore are undeserving of the resources needed to sustain them. (The USSR did not go All out for this philosophy, but they did use it to an extent. Their usual focus was on political prisoners in the Gulags and Siberia. They would put them to work, but give them ration levels that would literally have killed them from starvation over time, but with the workload they were forced to produce, they were dying much faster. This tactic was also used by the Nazis when dealing with the Jews in the deathcamps and by the Japanese in their POW camps. [Although with the Japanese it was because they believed a warrior who allowed himself to be captured was subhuman and did not deserve to live.])

    If the Communists/Socialists bring this about slowly and carefully enough they can have us all seeing it as “necessary” and right. We are saving the parents of these poor disabled children the heartbreak of raising a damaged individual. Or saving the old person in failing health the indignity of a prolonged decline and finally death. These babies would thank us if they could talk, or be capable of intelligent thought. And these elders or infirm adults would do the same, were the tubes, hoses and connections not stopping them from speaking. Once we have been softened up enough we won’t have to “starve” them, we’ll be able to just give them a nice quick clean injection and it’ll all be over in minutes instead of a fortnight.

    (Gods I hate crawling around in the muck liberals call their minds)

    • ancientwrrior says:

      My friend, these Communist/Socialist liberals can advocate this horror because their souls are already dead. These entities are the true zombies of our times, living bodies without souls to guide them.

  4. jnnoma8 says:

    The Arctic Fox is always ahead of the curve (e.g. Death/Debt panels, Crony Capitalism,Qualitative Easing). As the mother of a special-needs child, I’m certain that Palin is especially sickened, by the prospect of this governmental barbarism. Sarah gauged the relentless statism of the DB’s regime, as presciently, as she gauged the abysmal myopia,ignorance, and stupidity, of the “Bread and Circuses” sheeple, who would re-elect him. Well before the majority of us (including the political experts and pundits),she could see that the America, of Sandra Fluke and the “Obamaphone” gal wanted a sugar daddy, not a Mama Grizzly leader. Would Ronald Reagan be elected president OR Governor of California, today? Sadly, Obama is the reflection, of the American people, at least, of a majority of them. When, if ever, the electorate grows up, we may have a President Palin. At this sorry point in our nation’s history, we richly deserve the president that we’ve got.

  5. Alain41 says:

    Horrible. Brings to mind, the incorrect liberal talking point about the U.S. having a high infant mortality rate and that is partly why Ocare was needed. I do not know, but would not surprise me, that babies dying at home or in hospice do not count as infant mortality in UK. So assuming correct, by condemning babies to die, you can decrease infant mortality. Orwell’s homeland. George, you tried.

  6. midget says:

    Thank you Shifra for informing people of this atrocity. The Nazi’s did these horrible things in secret and now people are blatantly shaking their fist in God’s face. It reminds me of the pagans in the Bible who sacrificed their children to the god molech for favors.

  7. Kitten says:

    Thank you for this post, Shifra…a very tough read. What a sad, sad reality for those living in the UK. I pray enough good people in this country will wake up to the truth of ObamaCare (and stop it) before these atrocities become a reality here. We must continue to blow the trumpet. Lord help us!

  8. pamelarice says:

    Shifra and Tammy,
    thanks for addressing this issue. This article came over my twitter feed last week and I was surprised no one was paying attention. What is being done in the UK(and could eventually be done here) is horrifying and heartbreaking.

  9. MACVEL says:

    The Holocaust began in the hospitals, against the weak and elderly, and when Hitler could get away with it, he established the camps, and the gas chambers. If we do not get rid of Obama, the same will happen here.

  10. sandyl says:

    I have a disabled daughter too, she was born 3.5 months early. 23 yrs later she is the absolute joy of our lives. We have been sick about OC since 2009. However I heard of this UK story about the same time that I heard about Kate’s pregnancy. When she went into the hospital I thought her baby will have all the care money can buy. The baby isn’t born yet and is already being given better care than live babies in the UK. I read that the royal family doesn’t know how much money they have, because they have so much of it. UK doesn’t have a problem with royal figureheads having this much money; even if they don’t have enough to save innocent babies. I know Tammy loves the tradition of the royals, but the tradition becomes unholy when it continues at the expense of life.

    • geezee says:

      sandyl,

      I get your point, but to give my thought, as I lived over there a while. some Brits love the royals, some don’t; doesn’t matter rich or poor. the royals are figure heads, they don’t run the NHS (national health service). The Queen has no power to change the NHS. She’s the richest citizen, but just a citizen in that sense. The Queen is the vicar of Christ on Earth… she’s the head of the church. she’s not a celebrity in the sense we know our hollywood elite or politicians. she has no political power, and the royals are largely a-political. if i were to hazard a guess, the royals are probably sickened that NHS puts babies to death.

      we americans have no real reference for royalty, except those who declare themselves royalty, such as hollywood & BARAK OBAMA. this is repugnant to us here, but royalty in England is not repugnant in that sense at all, to the citizenry (unless they are royal haters, and there are those). my British mother in law would PUT ON A SKIRT to listen to the Queen’s Christmas address on TV. the royals are spoken of in hushed, reverent tones. we simply have no reference for royalty here. we FLED a monarchy. and here we have Urkel crowning himself king, declaring we will have shoddy healthcare while his is gold plated! let them eat cake! he offends our instincts. the British royals would not crown THEMSELVES, nor would they declare the citizenry have shoddy anything, much less healthcare. the royals are removed from life as we know it (whether they like it or not) … they have no power whatsoever in that sense. they’re an institution, i guess, is a way we’d see it, possibly a parallel here would be the catholic church …. am i making any sense here?? hope i don’t sound preachy, just for the sake of clarity…

      • sandyl says:

        Geezee, thanks for your explanation. I agree with everything you said, but while we should have reverence for tradition and customs, the reverence for life comes first. I like the royals too and don’t believe they are aware of this horrible situation. That doesn’t however change my opinion that things need to change when we are starving human beings because they are too costly. If the royals are that out of touch with the plight of their fellow countrymen, then the time for reverence has long past–IMHO.

You must be logged in to post a comment.