Ezekiel Emanuel , Rham's brother and NObamas Health Advisor says infants and seniors

[son of the revolution]

This shit sounds like its coming from Mengle or something . Rhambo's Brother says infants and seniors are " expendable "

July 30, 2009 --Obama health-care policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel announced a new "Complete Lives System" for selecting which sections of the population should be killed, in his article "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."

Published Jan. 31, 2009 in the British medical journal Lancet, Emanuel's euthansia-selection article appeared 11 days after President Obama's inauguration. Then on March 19, Emanuel was appointed to the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, to begin the design of a Federal system for withdrawing care from those chosen for death.

Though written in bloodless academic language, Emanuel's discourse most closely resembles one of Adolf Hitler's rambling pronouncements as know-it-all Fuehrer.

Emanuel sums up who is to be treated, and who is to die:

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." This may be justified by public opinion, since "broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people."

Emanuel decrees that we must not kill only the elderly, but also infants.

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."

He proclaims his new "Complete Lives System" to be an advance over previous death-selection systems such as Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Disability-Adjusted Life Years.

He criticizes the random ("lottery") selection of those to be saved, as based on the supposedly unscientific notion that "each person's desire to stay alive should be regarded as of the same importance and deserving the same respect as that of anyone else." He claims that this attitude shows "blindness to many seemingly relevant factors. Random decisions between someone who can gain 40 years and someone who can gain only 4 months, or someone who has lived only 20 years, are inappropriate."

Emanuel the "reformer" assures us that unlike other death-selection systems, "the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents."

Near the end of his Lancet article, Emanuel responds directly to an old article ("Rationing Health Care: The Case Against" by John Grimley Evans, British Medical Journal, March 15, 1997) that attacked the Nazi character of the policy Emanuel proposes.

Evans had written, "Surveys in Britain show that older people are widely seen as of lower social worth than younger... [S]ome researchers suggest that public attitudes displayed by such surveys are a valid basis for rationing in the health services.... [W]ould researchers suggest that racial prejudice revealed by their questionaires should be a basis for health service rationing?... We should not create, on the basis of age or any other characteristic over which individuals have no control, classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on."

Ezekiel Emanuel, chief health-care policy adviser to President Obama, replies to Evans, "Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

[Elmar]

Got a link for that?

[Brick]

Here's a reference for those who would want to pursue this further:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...article_upsell

And this is the article summary from The Lancet

Department of Ethics
The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009 <Previous Article|Next Article>doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9Cite or Link Using DOIPrinciples for allocation of scarce medical interventions
Original Text
Govind Persad BS a, Alan Wertheimer PhD a, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD a Summary
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

In order to read the entire article it is neccessary to establish an account with The Lancet access to the article however is free of charge.

[Thisperson]

So you feel that if there is some kind of killer virus outbreak, where we only have a certain ammount of vaccine (scarce resources, as he says), that we should use that vaccine on the 75 year-olds and infants?

Seems like what he's saying makes sense. Give the vaccines to the people who have the best chance of helping rebuild society (physical strength) after an end of the world type scenario.

I don't understand where the euthenasia talk comes from. I will say that the15 to 40 sounds a bit small though.

[son of the revolution]

So you feel that if there is some kind of killer virus outbreak, where we only have a certain ammount of vaccine (scarce resources, as he says), that we should use that vaccine on the 75 year-olds and infants?

Seems like what he's saying makes sense. Give the vaccines to the people who have the best chance of helping rebuild society (physical strength) after an end of the world type scenario.

I don't understand where the euthenasia talk comes from. I will say that the15 to 40 sounds a bit small though.

Read closer , his comments dont only pertain to a "doomsday scenario " of limited vaccine availability as you imply , its pretty clear he's talking about ALL medical resources being allocated . Since three of my kids were born premature , two of them extremely so , to the point they were in the NICU on advanced life support for MONTHS , under his criteria they would have been either left to whither away or euthanised. Seems he's saying the same thing for the elderly , regardless of their " will to live " which often has an amazing result on peoples long term survivability long past the "odds"

[larrymeyer]

So you feel that if there is some kind of killer virus outbreak, where we only have a certain ammount of vaccine (scarce resources, as he says), that we should use that vaccine on the 75 year-olds and infants?

Seems like what he's saying makes sense. Give the vaccines to the people who have the best chance of helping rebuild society (physical strength) after an end of the world type scenario.

I don't understand where the euthenasia talk comes from. I will say that the15 to 40 sounds a bit small though.

So you'd be willing to let die a Ron Regan, a Dr Johna Salk, an Albert Einstein an Tom Edison, ETC. Just saying we can always fire up the gas ovens. We have the records and blue prints. Lets take the old people first most hate there parents and grandparents. Once there gone we can recount how many children we'd need to gas and then pick a country like maybe the US and take those children.

[goofin]

carpet bombing DC would be a good start to stop all the madness. lets take them out before they get us. then start getting the rest of the liberals

[Thisperson]

So you'd be willing to let die a Ron Regan, a Dr Johna Salk, an Albert Einstein an Tom Edison, ETC. Just saying we can always fire up the gas ovens. We have the records and blue prints. Lets take the old people first most hate there parents and grandparents. Once there gone we can recount how many children we'd need to gas and then pick a country like maybe the US and take those children.

Eh, the government will probably save the smart old guys too in crisis scenario.

Still don't see the euthenasia line of thought but oh well. Maybe we can make cars that run off of old people and children... How's that for green energy?

[son of the revolution]

Eh, the government will probably save the smart old guys too in crisis scenario.

Still don't see the euthenasia line of thought but oh well. Maybe we can make cars that run off of old people and children... How's that for green energy?

That would be soylent green !!

[bogey1]

goofin sounds like hes got a plan. and a good one at that