TIMES have changed. In 2020 and 2021, our government was imploring us not to kill granny . . . in 2024 it is possible that doing exactly that could constitute government policy.
Last month, St Esther Rantzen was wheeled out to plant another idea in the public consciousness. She told us that she’d signed up for an early bath. Perhaps she’d forgotten that ten years ago she was campaigning to keep geriatric care very much a pressing issue. ‘Silverline’ was her crutch to help lonely oldies get through the day. Now it seems she believes that they should think very carefully about wanting to see out the coming year.
This is the woman who wanted those who refused a booster jab to be denied NHS treatment. Now she’s promoting a ‘top yourself and don’t be a burden on NHS resources’ policy.
As 2023 draws to a close, it seems that everybody has a view on a ‘new’ policy that has crept up on us. Former health secretaries have been wheeled out to offer their views. Why do we need to hear what Stephen Dorrell and Alan Milburn have to say? The Guardian is the staunchest organ against NHS privatisation, so why were the commercial interests of Dorrell and Milburn not made clear to readers?
Dorrell ended a 36-year parliamentary career in 2015 to become a corporate lobbyist and health policy influencer. He is a senior adviser to KPMG on public health matters, was chair of the NHS Confederation and is a non-executive director of Four Eyes Insight, which describes its role as to ‘find, deliver and implement significant efficiencies for hospitals and trusts through an approach designed by clinicians for clinicians’. He also has a significant interest in the Omnes Group, which ‘helps the NHS reduce its backlog’ while tapping into government funding of £5.4billion.
Milburn, who left parliament in 2010, went on to chair PwC’s Health Industry Oversight Board.
We can be certain that across all policy areas, there are many individuals lobbying for corporate interests to fleece the taxpayer whilst simultaneously disregarding citizens’ interests. We are ‘units’ to them.
It’s clear to see which way the wind is blowing. Corporate interests are rinsing the taxpayer, and it seems that they have discovered that keeping the elderly and long-term sick alive is a bit of a drag on profits. The government clearly believes that the issue must be examined – after all, medical treatment, social services and old age pensions cost money. If these people were encouraged to ‘check out’, costs would come down, inheritance tax receipts would rise and houses would become vacant.
Perhaps there is some merit in the concept. My own mother, who had seen her elder sister’s life crumble into a pathetic, demented morass, was terrified that she’d have a similar fate. A lifelong smoker, diagnosed with COPD at 77, determined to cheat senility, she carried on puffing away, and expired two years later with all of her marbles. Shouldn’t we all have such a choice? A friend with MND chose to live as long as he could. Brave, but harrowing. For me – staunchly in favour of personal choice – faced with such a devastating illness, I think I would take the early . . . but it must be emphasised that that option should only be valid as and when it has become physically and mentally impossible to lead a normal life.
Those who have followed the events of the past few years will know that under WEF-trained psychopaths, life in Canada has become quite dystopian. In 2016, the Trudeau government brought in the legislation to make ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAID) lawful for Canadians over 18 who had ‘grievous and irremediable medical conditions that caused enduring suffering’ and whose death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.
Critics of MAID put forward the ‘slippery slope’ argument about doctors touting the virtues of MAID and of vulnerable people being pressured into requesting it. Trudeau responded that ‘this simply isn’t something that ends up happening’, but we all know full well that Trudeau and others with messiah complexes, both in politics and medicine, can convince themselves of anything. They also think that we do not see through them.
No surprise, then, that just five years later, in early 2021, Canadian law was loosened to encompass those suffering ‘grievous and irremediable conditions’ but whose death was not ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Canadian law now allows the depressed, drug addicts and even down-and-outs to opt for MAID. Dr Robert Malone has more, but the facts are that between 2016 when there were 2,018 assisted suicides, and 2022 when there were 13,241, nearly 45,000 Canadians chose, or were persuaded, to end their lives prematurely, of whom 463 were not likely to die.
Figures show that 4.1 per cent of all deaths in Canada are now medically assisted, and that the public generally approve. In fairness, statistics do not seem to show any significant abuse of the process, the average age at death being 77 years, but as we know figures can be made to substantiate any position. What can’t be known is the strength of medical ethics, and the extent of ‘persuasion’. In the past few years, the medical profession in most of the Western world has not excelled at ethics.
Also in fairness, ‘mental illness as a sole underlying condition’ has been excluded from the legislation – until March this year. We know, too, that the Trudeau government has been ‘looking into’ lowering the age of those who might ask for MAID to 12. This raises questions as to quite how determined the Canadian government is to discharge the state’s obligations to look after vulnerable adults and children.
The direction of travel in Canada is very clear; indeed the Health Minister, Mark Holland, stated that he was ‘proud to present’ those figures. He is proud that people are choosing to end their lives, and presumably is similarly ‘proud’ that each year in Canada some 100,000 women choose to terminate their pregnancies. Yet the regime of which he is a member would not tolerate personal choices being made in respect of ‘the jab’.
In Canada, in Britain, everywhere, medical ethics are utterly shot. In 2021-22, we were conned into taking jabs to benefit ‘others’ and into pressuring others to have jabs. It is entirely possible that sooner or later we will believe that pressuring people into dying for the sake of society is the ‘right thing to do’.
On matters of public health, we can no longer trust a single politician, official, administrator or doctor. All they are interested in is power and money – but not just saving it. There may be a much more sinister motive for Dorrell, Milburn and co to chime in. If it becomes legal for Brits to end their lives, will they all go to Holland and Switzerland for the purpose? No, someone will have to provide the ‘service’ here, and those who can afford it will have to pay. Just imagine, with ruthless corporate ‘efficiency’, punters could drink the lethal potion and be cremated at the same place on the same day.
Seems to me that there is lobbying to create a whole new and extremely profitable industry, and of course there would be no question of dissatisfied customers making complaints, for it would be done all on the grounds of ‘personal choice’.
Now, Look Them in the Eyes . . . and tell them that it’s their ‘public duty’ to be put down.