Mercy Killings And The
Culling Of The Elderly
From Will Thomas <>
Dear Jeff,
So many of your visitors have written to me requesting the sources for my report of hospital "mercy" killing masking a cull of the elderly, I am sending some of my source material for an update on your site. Routine killing of the elderly who do not have terminal illness IS happening. Though the Pope has written an encyclical condemning this practice, the pressure to protect corporate profits and government budgets by eliminating "useless eaters" continue to increase.
Isn't it interesting that some of the most evil acts are commited by people convinced they are doing good?
My best to you,
Will Thomas
-- From the Feb. 2000 Homilitec and Pastoral Review, a publication for Catholic lay workers and priests:
According to Mary Therese Helmueller,- a registered nurse with 15 years of experience in emergency and critical care writing in the Feb. 2000 issue the Catholic clergy magazine Homilitec and Pastoral Review: ìOn Monday, February 20th, 1995, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.î
Helmueller returned from a pilgrimage in Mexico City to find doctors unable to tell her the cause of her grandmotherís death. When the RN obtained the hospital chart logging her grandmotherís treatment, she says ìIt then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!î
Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying, ìI donít want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordainedî: ìI want to see Greta walk.î Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild.
This patient was over-sedated, common occurrence among elderly patients whose livers can only tolerate a fraction of pain-killers given younger patients. She became comatose from the medication, and was diagnosed as having a stroke. Helmueller writes:
When she became comatose, a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.î
The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states ìno seizure activityî and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure!
Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a ìno codeî status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The ìno codeî was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope.
Minutes after obtaining the ìno codeî a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma...The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads ìDeath by natural causes.î
My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. The second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death!
Difficult to believe? Well it was for our prolife lawyer until his mother-in-law was admitted to a hospital several months later for a stroke. She became ìunresponsiveî and ìcomatoseî a few days after her admission. The neurologist wrote an order to transfer her to hospice refusing an IV and tube feeding staring ìthis is the most compassionate treatment.î
Remembering my story, our lawyer requested the removal of all narcotics and demanded an IV and tube feeding. This infuriated the neurologist. He began to accuse the family of being uncompassionate and inhumane. To prove his point he began a neurological assessment on the patient. Just then she opened her eyes and pulling the physicianís necktie, forced his face to hers and said very clearly ìGive me some water!î
It was obvious that she was awake, alert and orientated. He angrily canceled the transfer to hospice and ordered a tube feeding and intravenous. Several weeks later she was discharged and was exercising on the treadmill! She escaped the death sentence. Unfortunately many others like my grandmother have not.
Recently, Helmueller reports, ìan 80-year-old was admitted to the emergency room and the physician said, ëletís dehydrate herí.î Translation - ìLetís kill her.î
When another 70 year old patient was sentenced to die in hospice with no terminal diagnosis while pleading for his life, this nurse decided that ìI can no longer remain silent.î
Those who have lost friends or family members to a sudden onslaught of upper respiratory, heart or gastrointestinal complications following exposure to heavy chemtrail spraying will recognize the following sentence - really a ìdeath sentenceî - from Helmueller: ìThe elderly are frequently dying three days after being admitted to the hospital.î
Medical personnel now attribute these deaths to ìold age syndromeî. But aging has never killed anyone! Degenerative illnesses are the real culprits. And these fatal conditions can strike at any age.
According to Helmueller, other health professionals ìadmit that overdosing is all too common. Euthanasia is not legal but it is being practiced.î
Last year the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 1 in 5 critical care nurses admit to having hastened the death of the terminally ill.
After working with nurses who even admit to overdosing their parents, --- believes the percentage is much higher. Dr. Dolan, of the University of Minnesota, states as ìa conservative estimationî that 40% of all reported deaths in the United States are the result of euthanasia.
The ìculture of deathî has deeply infected the medical establishment. ìMany doctors and nurses are speaking about ending their own lives when they reach the age of 65 or before if diagnosed with an illness,î Helmueller writes. ìSome even admit to stealing the drugs for their own lethal injection. If they do not value their own lives, how can they value yours?î
Under the guise of ìcompassionî, hospital killing today is commonly referred to as ìthe exit treatmentî. With Medicare and Medicaid seen as ìrunning outî , Helmueller reports that many doctors and nurses believe that death by injection, starvation or dehydration is the best solution to patients ìwhose suffering is seen as hopeless, inconvenient...and a financial burdenî on their families and society.
ìDeath by natural causesî is the official declaration on the death certificates of the euthanized. ìDid you know that this is the exact same proclamation on the death certificate of St. Maximillian Kolbe?î asks Helmueller. ìEveryone knows however that he died from a lethal injection in Auschwitz concentration camp after many days of dehydration and starvation!î
In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II warns: ìHere we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the ëCulture of Deathí which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled as intolerable and too burdensome.î
The pope insisted that: ìas they approach death people ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a fully conscious way for their meeting with God.î
Helmueller denounces this ìgrave and moral injusticeî, declaring that ìMany souls are being denied the opportunity to reconcile with God and family members because their death has been hastened or deliberately taken.î
The Carmelite Sisters relate the story of a friend whose husband was diagnosed with terminal cancer, but not expected to die for several months or a year. This man had been away from the Catholic Church and the sacraments, and was estranged from his children. One day while in hospital he complained to his wife of pain. When the doctor arrived he gave an injection through the intravenous line. The husband took three more breaths and died. The wife screamed, ìI did not ask you to kill my husband! We needed time to reconcile our marriage and family. He needed time to reconcile with God and the Church!î
Helmueller also relates how ìa very holy priestî from St. Paul was called to administer the last sacraments to a hospice patient. The priest was stunned to find the ìdyingî patient sitting up in a chair! He visited with the patient half an hour before administering the last sacraments. Just before he left the room, the patient jumped up in bed. A nurse immediately administered an injection. Perplexed and concerned, the good priest called the hospital from the rectory. You guessed it. The patient had already expired.
Helmueller voices our outrage when she asks:
How can it ever be morally acceptable to transfer patients to a unit to die when they have no terminal illness? How can sedating a patient and refusing a tube feeding and intravenous be considered compassionate? Dehydration and starvation is not a painless death. Has [euthanasia] become the Auschwitz of today? A convenient and economically efficient place to dump the unwanted, imperfect, and burdensome of our society?
WARNING: Affixing your signature to a ìliving willî is signing your own death warrant. Originally developed by Luis Kutner in 1967 for the Euthanasia Society of America, the ìliving willî is the most cost-effective tool for hospitals, insurance companies, and disbursers of Medicare and Medicaid. As Helmueller points out, ìIt gives permission to facilitate your death by denying medical treatment.î
Cynically and deceptively described as ìthe Patient Self-determination Act,î since 1990, the ìliving willî has been used to terminate patient care - and patients - across America.
Helmueller warns that, written in broad and vague terms, the ìliving willî is open to interpretation by medical professionals and others ìwho stand to benefit from your demise. Remember, your best interests may not be theirs!î
In fact, a profession supposedly dedicated to saving lives and ìdoing no harm,î your life may be less desirable than your death. As Helmueller pointedly asks: ìIf cutting care for those patients who ask for it wasnít so successful in saving money and controlling the budget, why then did it originate in the Senate Finance Committee? And why was it supported by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health? These are finance committees whose only interest is controlling the budget! It is obvious that the living will is all about saving money, not your life!î
Recently, a 70-year-old was admitted through the emergency room in respiratory distress. He was placed on a ventilator and transported to the intensive care unit. He was awake, alert and orientated anxiously writing notes: ìI donít want to dieî: ìI changed my mindî: and ìPlease donít take me off the machine.î He was very persistent and urgent with his pleading.
I soon understood why! His family and physicians were meeting to discuss a serious problem. He had signed a ìliving willî declaring that he did not want ìany extraordinary measures.î
He was now viewed as ìincapableî of making any decisions and they wanted to follow his wishes as stated in the legal document! Very convenient for those who do not want their inheritance spent on hospital costs and for those who do not want to be bothered with a ìuseless burdenî to our society!
Today hospitals and health care facilities are required to ask patients if they have a living will, or lose government funding! The question is proposed in such a way to create pressure on patients so that they think it is something good, desirable and necessary. ìDo you know that you have a right in the state of Minnesota to possess a living will?î
Please remember that the living will targets you for euthanasia by denying you medical treatment.
----------- From THE AGE-- Melborne, Australia
Surgeons admit hurrying death By BRETT FOLEY Saturday 13 May 2000
Hundreds of Australian surgeons have given excessive medication to patients to hasten their deaths, a national survey has revealed. More than one-third of the surgeons who responded to the survey said they had at some time administered more medication than was required to treat a patient's symptoms - with the intention of hastening death.
More than half of those also admitted they had done so without an explicit request from the patient.
The national survey of almost 1000 general surgeons also found almost half of respondents supported legislation on active voluntary euthanasia and were in favor of doctor-assisted suicide.
The survey on their attitudes to euthanasia was presented to the Annual Scientific Congress of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne yesterday.
About 69 percent of surgeons responded anonymously about their views on euthanasia after the Northern Territory's rights of the terminally ill legislation that was overturned by a conscience vote in Federal Parliament.
The survey asked if doctors had intentionally assisted death, either with or without an explicit request. When asked if they had ever given drugs in doses greater than those to required to relieve symptoms with the intention of hastening death, 36 percent said yes.
Of those more than half said they had done so without an explicit request from the patient.
Under common law doctors can lawfully increase sedation of a terminally ill patient with the intention of relieving pain and suffering, even if that action hastens the patient's death. But if the doctor has the intention of the hastening the death of patients, even if they are close to death and have made the request, it's a crime.
The researcher, Dr Charles Douglas, from the Mater Hospital in Newcastle, said almost all respondents indicated it was sometimes morally acceptable to give sedatives in large doses to hasten death. In many cases, if an explicit request was absent, it was because the patient could not make the request.
"The administration of analgesic or sedative infusion with the intention of hastening death appears to be more common, often occurs without request and we speculate that this occurs in (moribund) patients who are very close to death," he said.
Dr Douglas said it was very difficult to distinguish intentional actions from normal palliative care unless the doctors reported it themselves.
"Clearly the use of analgesic or sedative infusions represents a grey zone between palliative care and euthanasia," he said. "There is no consensus among Australian general surgeons about the wisdom of legalising active voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide."
Euthanasia campaigner Dr Phillip Nitschke said the results were encouraging but displayed the difficult position doctors were in because of inadequate legislation. Dr Nitschke said the findings confirmed a process of "de facto euthanasia" was being carried out by many surgeons. "It quantifies what many people know, that there are doctors out there who are maintaining the facade of providing palliative care, when many of them know the consequences of their treatments with these drugs," he said.

This Site Served by TheHostPros