Yesterday I searched around for any confirmation of Fritz’s claim that Hillary Clinton had suggested that she and her husband would accept euthanasia at the age of 60. (I really find that hard to believe, but don’t tell him that. We’ve been getting along pretty well lately.)
And as so often happens, I got sidetracked. Now, I consider myself moderately informed. I honestly would have thought that I’d have known if George Soros had founded an organization with sinister name of the Project on Death in America. But I’d never heard of it before yesterday, and I’m wondering if any of you had, either.
Image from Soros's "Death Project."
If you search online for it, among the results listed is www.soros.org/death. That link is no longer active. Wikipedia has no entry for it, but mentions it under Soros’s own entry:
The Project on Death in America, active from 2001-2003, was one of the Open Society Institute’s projects, which sought to “understand and transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement.”
But this conflicts with the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, or JRSM, which gives the “Project’s” founding date as 1994.
From its inception in July of 1994 to the present, the Project on Death in America (PDIA) has provided funding for individuals and institutions to address, through research and model systems of care, the barriers to appropriate compassionate care of the dying. The major medical, social and economic impediments include: changes in the trajectory of dying, exemplified by large numbers of patients living for months or years after diagnosis of incurable diseases such as cancer and AIDS; the increasing age of the population; high-technology medical support systems for patients with respiratory and cardiac failure; the greater emphasis on patient autonomy, along with the concerted shift from societal to individual rights; and the limitations in healthcare resources, particularly for patients with chronic medical illness.
Let me reiterate the “barriers” to appropriate health care: too many people living for years after being diagnosed with incurable diseases, too many people living too long in general, technological advances that have increased the chance of survival for patients with cardiac and respiratory failure, an emphasis on patients rights—and the rights of the individuals in general, and the cost of treating patients with chronic conditions.
You see, under socialized medicine these all really are “barriers.” You need to understand that when the government is paying for health care, it has no incentive to keep alive the elderly or the infirm. It actually has a reverse incentive: every older person, and every disabled person, who dies prematurely saves the government a lot of money—not only in medical expenses but in Social Security outlays.
But why would the entry in Wikipedia get the Project on Death in America’s start date wrong? Because it began in 1994, one year after Hillary Clinton’s health care debacle. George Soros realized that one of the main “barriers” to instituting socialized medicine was America’s’ shocking selfishness in wanting to extend individual lives at the expense of the collective.
Attitudes needed to be altered. Morality had to be modified.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we can see that a great deal of the Project on Death in America’s attention was focused on re-shaping American culture:
The Project on Death in America seeks to transform the culture of dying by supporting initiatives in research, scholarship, the humanities, and the arts, and by fostering innovation in the provision of care, public and professional education, and public policy. Through its, PDIA provides funding for programs and individuals who are doing research and creating models of care that address the obstacles [barriers] modern society and high- tech medicine place in the way of achieving a good death.
Thirteen faculty scholars were selected in 1995 to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals and lead to the transformation of end-of-life care through their initiatives in clinical practice and research. Faculty scholar projects concentrated on the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying. [Emphasis mine.]
The JRSM describes the Project on Death in America’s attempts to glamorize death:
To emphasize the contributions of the arts and humanities in transforming the culture of death, PDIA encouraged persons from the literary, visual and performing arts to identify, create and convey meaning in facing disability and death, and to invoke and deepen our understanding of the diverse myths and metaphors that shape the experience of suffering in dying and bereavement.
The JRSM gives us a little more information regarding the “Project’s” special emphasis on “vulnerable” populations:
[The Project on Death in America] has also funded a broadly based grants programme, and through a series of special initiatives has attempted to focus attention on the needs of vulnerable populations—with special attention to children, prisoners, minorities and the elderly.
Increasing numbers of prisoners are dying without access to compassionate release.
Through its African-American initiative, PDIA has identified specific barriers to the provision of end-of-life care for minorities. PDIA is supporting the development of a network of collaborative organizations to identify the barriers and find ways to improve care for African Americans.
Medicare is inadequately designed to meet the chronic care needs of seriously ill and old patients for symptom control, caregiver assistance and home care. The elderly, often having outlived their family members and spouses, have limited resources and their complex ills commonly include cognitive failure. If the Medicare system is to be reformed, this must be done soon to meet the needs of the expected three-fold increase in the aged population in the next ten years. Care for the elderly is now on the national agenda.
Children, prisoners, minorities and the elderly. Think about those categories, and shiver. More from the JRSM:
PDIA serves as a model programme for non-governmental philanthropic organizations that can help to create momentum for change in transforming the culture of death. There is a need for international groups to address these important topics on the care of the dying and to see such issues as integral to all programmes caring for the elderly and for patients with AIDS, cancer, and chronic disease in general. From numerous public surveys, nationally and internationally, there is evidence to suggest that the public have complex and at times contradictory, attitudes to death and dying. They consider their own death with a mixture of dread and procrastination. They fear overuse of medical technology, want personal control, and are afraid of being a burden. These attitudes can only be addressed by developing broad-based programmes for improving communication and decision-making at the end of life, by changing the culture of healthcare institutions and by changing attitudes to death. [Emphasis mine.]
Do you remember the death of Terri Schiavo? Not the fact of her death, but the way her husband Michael’s attorney, George Felos, described it? As “beautiful.” A helpless woman slowly dehydrating over days and days was not “beautiful”(whatever you believe about her mental state). That was an attempt to change our culture, and our foundational morality.
This was what Pope John Paul II was talking about when he said we must reject the culture of death.
———————————-
Here you can see that the Project on Death in America gave out millions of dollars in grants in 1996 (the earliest date available on the Wayback Machine), years before Wikipedia claims the Project was “active.”
Why is Soros allowed to roam free? Why does he get the benefit of billions to sleep well at night? When will someone rid us of this evil troll?
This is how places like the Netherlands keep their healthcare costs down. 1% of Americans account for 27% of health care spending, and that’s basically those in the last few weeks/months of life. If Soros can change the thinking about bumping these people off, then Obamacare can cut the costs of medical care in America by 27% overnight. Chilling.
I’m just waiting for the little crystal implant, in my palm, to tell me when it’s time to be “renewed.”
Soros is an evil man. No doubt about it. The saddest part, however is the fact that so many “buy” into this crap!
Now as for my defense, I spent half the day yesterday attempting to come up with a link for the “strictly hearsay” evidence I presented. I was unable to find any specifics. My apologies. I realize that hearsay is not admissible in criminal cases, for the most part, but is in civil courts. I therefore throw myself on the mercy of the “Court of Mike” with possible appeal to Floyd, our resident legal eagle. All I can say in my defense is that there was so much BS coming from both the Clintons during those years they were “das leaders”, and much of it totally unbelievable, that they must have said what Mrs. Fritz and I heard. Weak, huh? Best I can do at this point.
Mike, please be gentle with me, aa I am old enough to fall into Soros’ plan. I’ll be gone soon enough and you can “pick my bones” after that.
-Fritz-
You know, it’s certainly possible that she may have said something like that. I’d have to believe it would have been said facetiously, though. Unfortunately, it would have been pre-internet, and it wouldn’t have been covered in the major newspapers, so it’s gone.
News headline from 2012: Obama Administration Announces Soylent Green.
Right now Jimmy, they’re feeding us a load of Soylent Brown!
This goes hand-in-hand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent comment about certain segments of the population needing to be controlled by abortion. For some on the left, death (natural or state-assisted) is a valuable tool for population and societal control.
As for Soros, he is a true example of a liberal fascist. He was a Nazi collaborator, and is proud of it. But because he financially supports “social justice” (an odious euphemism for bigotry, statism and communism), he is cherished on the left.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!
And SOYLENT BROWN IS ****!!!
From the image:
“If we make it to 90 we are all dying no matter how healthy we are”
That’s true of everyone, whether or not you make it to 90. One of my friends, who has cancer, jokes that you only know you’ve survived cancer when you die of something else. There’s a 100% death rate among humans.
I’m split on all of this. Actually, let me be clear, I’m NOT split on letting the government be in charge of the decision. They should NOT be, period. Because of that nasty little 100% bit, there’s just too many and it’s too personal for it to be a bureaucratic process.
But I do fall more in the category of wanting to be careful how far we artificially extend life. I want to be careful here, I’m not for killing people off cause they’re “useless” or old or not what we wanted, but I do wonder sometimes if we’ve crossed some line in how far we go to save. Here’s our scenario: Granny’s 86, all done with living without her husband and her family, her mind is barely there, and they found cancer. She doesn’t want it treated, she doesn’t want the fear and hope and mess, at least that’s what she says when she remembers she has it. I personally believe it would be just as wrong of us to treat her as it would be to refuse treatment.
Again though, it’s extremely personal and I sure as anything don’t want some government policy making that decision, cause I might change when it’s me or my kid lying in that bed. However, I also don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for extending life for every one either. It’s awful that it’s expensive, putting a dollar value on life is…well, I don’t even have words for it, but that’s the deal. We have the technology, but it’s expensive. You chose it, you gotta figure out how to pay for it.
It seems as though most Americans want it both ways. They want an individualized health care system that values them and life, and they want someone else to figure out how to pay for it.
Tracy, the reason I put that image there is not because I disagree with the sentiment, it’s because I see how someone of a certain cast of mind could misinterpret it. If you won’t be labeled as dying until the “last couple of days at best,” perhaps it would be better to euthanize before you know for sure whether you have a fatal illness. Perhaps it would be better to euthanize everybody by 90, since they are dying anyway.
Your comments are very well-reasoned. (They must be, because I agree with them!) As far as I can tell, they reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings on the subject. Which is a good thing, because I’m obligated to follow Church teachings so it’s handy that I agree with them.
Palliative care is not a sin. Relieving pain is a blessing. Refusing the treatment of a very ill person could be considered “no extraordinary methods.” As long as we don’t get into the area of withholding food and water, it’s all good.
I suspect—though I don’t know for sure—that the Church would not regard it as sinful if a doctor erred on the side of too much pain medication rather than too little. I’m not talking about a wink-wink “accident,” but an honest judgment as to the level of pain the patient is experiencing, when our loved ones are in a truly hopeless state. (If that makes sense. I’m sure I’m wording that clumsily.)
And all these decisions need to be made by families with the advice of physicians, and should never be made a government policy.
I’m a closet Catholic. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
No, of course not. My father’s a Catholic. What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business.
I don’t even think 90 is a good age to pick. Picking becomes choosing and that’s always bad. Seriously speaking a person starts his death trip the second he’s born. The only difference is we know not when death will happen.
So if death by starvation and dehydration is beautiful, does that mean it’ll be okay to use it when Supreme Court rules lethal injection to be “cruel and unusual”?
In a few years, the best way to get medical attention will be to commit a felony (like spitting on an image of The Magic Teleprompter), plead guilty and then once in prison, threaten to sue if you don’t get treatment.
Generally speaking the medical field and those who are a part of it have to varying degrees lost their vision and the true meaning of the Hippocratic Oath. That plus the greed of insurance companies.
My brother was a family physician in a small (about 16,000 pop.) Colorado town some years back. He decided to “specialize” and after his specialty courses, etc., left that small town. When he left he had on the books, some 100 or more patients who were mostly retired or poor. Rather than compromise his values, he wrote off many 10s of thousands of dollars worth of money owed him by those people, rather than drag them into court suing them for probably the only money they had. There are still some around who might do the same, but somehow I really doubt that the practice is happening to any great degree. Most MDs work in associations with a large staff of nurses, techs and insurance “billers and coders”, plus the miriad of gov’t. regulations in place. Part of the blame is of course thanks to the lack of tort reform and the extreme costs for malpractice insurance. i.e.: That old bugaboo…GREED!
I guess you are proud of your brother
Yes, Kit, both of them. I’m the black sheep of the family.
Fritz, Modern Conservative is trying to push Free and Fair Healthcare. Do you think you or your brother would be interested in participating in some capacity? If you are, contact me a david.marcoe at modernconservative dot com
David-He might’ve been a few years back. He’s got some health issues now and retired from his position at Reading Rehab Hospital in PA a few years ago. I’ll check just in case.
Speaking as someone who survived a coma Terri Schaivo’s death was not beautiful it was barbaric. She was most likely aware of what they were doing to her. Her kidneys causing agonizing pain……..I wouldn’t wish her death on the people that perpetrated her death.
Let’s just say I’m glad I don’t remember a damn thing from my brief coma (been told the mind blocks it for a reason, not unlike Professor X’s while his mind battled the Brood), but it does give a whole new appreciation for life. Also taught me doctors don’t know as much as they think they do, and to always always always ask for a second, third or fourth opinion, never accepting their low expectation prognoses … but that’s a different story.
I love the term “vulnerable populations.” And I love how the liberal love of eugenics, something I always found as an underwhelming focus and a bit of a nonconcern, is starting to scare the hell out of me.
You guys ever see the film The Wansee Conference? If you can get it on your netflix get it. What you are speaking of John is very similiar to what that movie is really about.
@ Kenn – I was going to make a Logan’s Run gag, but you beat me to it. Then someone stole my Soylent Green gag…too slow, I guess.
The problem is not so much that we have gibbering schizophrenics like Soros and the PeTA-philes running around, the problem is that for some reason we started paying attention to the gibbering schizophrenics. Are we so lost for direction and leadership in this country that we’ll listen to anyone who’s passionate, even if they’re passionate about utter nonsense?
Al Gore…The example that proves your point.
Some stuff I could remember when I was in a coma and some stuff I couldn’t. I think it was a different coma than other people experience.It depends on what caused it etc. But Schaivo’s eyes were open. Her nurse said she was aware. Her husband basically had her murdered. His name and Mengele’s will be forever linked. Bastard.
This is all bullshit. As someone who studies death culture in America, I can relate the The Project on Death in America was intent on improving the culture of death in which the elderly die alone in rest homes, the terminally ill die alone in hospitals, prisoners die alone in cells–situations in which our fellow Americans are not accorded “the good death.” If you had any compassion, you would look past your partisanship and see it for what it was. Pathetic.
This is all bullshit.
Such a thorough and mature response…
As someone who studies death culture in America, I can relate the The Project on Death in America was intent on improving the culture of death in which the elderly die alone in rest homes, the terminally ill die alone in hospitals, prisoners die alone in cells–situations in which our fellow Americans are not accorded “the good death.”
Craig, that’s simple compassion and IF that were the extent of the project, then it is a noble and praiseworthy pursuit. But as there are passages, quoted from their own documents, outlining some of the project’s goals, let me repeat your response…bullshit.
You accuse us of lacking compassion, as if any sane and normal human being would oppose something like making sure people didn’t die alone. Are you truly stupid enough to believe that of us, or are you just so deceptive that you’re willing to accuse us of it?
I think you know perfectly well that what was said here has nothing to do with what you’re accusing us of. You use the smokescreen of simple compassion to hide an effort to cheapen human life and strip it of its dignity. You wrap yourself in compassion to slowly take away from people the right to live.
If you truly believe we were that heartless, then you’re a fool. If you’re enough of a liar to accuse us of what we aren’t guilt of, you’re a monster. Either way, you’re the one who’s pathetic.