Pharmacide is the pharmaceutical industry's self-destructive effort to loot America and Fourth Reich(EU). Pharmaceutical industry executives are frequently accused of greedily putting profits before patients, as if drug companies could profit by means other than serving patients. This accusation would be unjust if these executives were after profits. Unfortunately, however, today's pharmaceutical executives are not after profits. They are after loot. They seek to gain, through legislation, money coercively taken by the government from citizens. But, unbeknownst to these executives, their looting is self-destructive. In fact, by aiding and abetting the government in its violation of individual rights, the pharmaceutical industry is committing suicide.
You should be free to search out the best, most affordable services from drugs, doctors, nurses, and other producers, who are free to offer and charge for them. There should be no government restrictions on the supply of medical professionals via licensing laws, just laws prohibiting medical fraud and malpractice. For example, a nurse trained in healing minor broken bones is free to start her own practice for lower-income customers. There are no "free" health care programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or government-imposed collective "insurance" plans to artificially drive up costs.
The government should not mandate that employers offer health insurance. Instead, individuals should pay for their own care, perhaps through a combination of direct payment for anticipated expenses and the purchase of catastrophic insurance for high, unanticipated expenses — or some yet undreamed of, superior solution the market comes up with. The result of a real market in medicine would be the same as in the market for computers: over time the same dollar would buy better and better products and services.
To reduce public expenditure on medicinal products, the national public health authorities in England and Wales introduced schemes providing doctors with financial incentives to prescribe to their patients medicinal products cheaper than other medicinal products in the same therapeutic class. However, choosing cheaper medicinal products with a different active substance might, in certain cases, have adverse consequences for the patient. The prescription of statins, which are cholesterol reducing substances, is primarily at issue in this case.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has asked the Court of Justice of EU whether the prohibition on financial incentives in the directive precludes the system applied in England and Wales.
In today's judgment, the Court finds that the prohibition in the directive concerns primarily the promotional activities carried out by the pharmaceutical industry and seeks to prevent promotional practices which may induce doctors to act in accordance with their economic interests when prescribing medicinal products.
By contrast, that prohibition does not apply to national public health authorities which, themselves, have competence for ensuring that the directive is applied for defining and to define the priorities for action in relation to public health policy, in particular so far as concerns the rationalisation of the public expenditure allocated to that policy.
In that regard, the Court notes that the health policy defined by a Member State and the public expenditure in that field do not pursue any profit-making or commercial aim. Therefore, the financial incentive scheme examined, which forms part of such a policy, cannot be regarded as seeking the promotion of commercial promotion of medicinal products. In addition, as regards that scheme, no danger to public health can be established in so far as the therapeutic value of the medicinal products favoured is constantly reviewed by the public authorities.
In those circumstances, it is permissible for those authorities to determine, on the basis of evaluations of the therapeutic qualities of the medicinal products by reference to their cost for the public budget, whether certain medicinal products containing a given active substance are, from the point of view of public finances, preferable to other medicinal products containing a different active substance, but falling within the same therapeutic class.
Venitis points out that pharmacide thrives on cacothanasia. Many medical advances are merely medicine gone mad, delivered by maddog doctors who cannot face failure. Quality of life can disappear under a forest of needles, wires, electronic gadgets, myrias expensive drugs, and surgical proceedures. There are myriads dying trapped in hospitals waiting for useless tests when they want to be at home. Others in coma following accidents or strokes often linger for months, hovering in that twilight zone between life and death, sustained by massive effort even when there is no hope of meaningful future existence.
Medical madness can be horrific. A friend went into hospital at the age of 75 for surgery which found inoperable tumour. She was a woman with strong faith, at peace, sustained by hope of eternal life. A day or two later she had a heart attack and was dying peacefully, as she had often prayed she would. But despite her wishes for no heroics the crash team was called and violent attempts were made to revive her with massive electric shocks, myriad drugs, and injections. She died anyway, without peace or dignity because no one stopped to think.
The limits of life are constantly expanding, without regard for the well-being or will of the patient. In some emergency rooms, half of all admissions now come from nursing homes. If someone who is chronically ill has a heart attack or gets pneumonia there, the most sensible thing to do is to make sure that they don't suffer, and to refrain from doing anything else. But this is all too rare. Instead, old people, who are dying, are torn out of their familiar surroundings, rushed off to hospital in an ambulance, resuscitated and given artificial respiration.
There are many patients who have been resuscitated only to remain alive in a vegetative state. Medicine puts many thousands of people a year in this awful state, in which they will remain suspended, unless they happen to have a living will. It was different in the past. In the 1960s, just about every other patient left the hospital in reasonably good health after resuscitation. The others died, partially because at the time you couldn't just keep feeding the unconscious. Today about one in 20 patients survives resuscitation. Take away those who leave the hospitals requiring long-term intensive care and the success rate drops.
No brain can survive without oxygen for more than eight to 10 minutes. If a doctor knows that this time limit has been exceeded, the patient has enlarged pupils and is almost clinically dead, then his efforts are pointless. Unless of course, the doctor thinks it's a good thing to produce patients in a vegetative state, at a 99% success rate.
The guiding principle for any physician is not to harm the patient. Additionally resuscitating someone who has metastasizing cancer and failing kidneys, after cardiac arrest, is completely pointless. This isn't any requirement for dialysis any longer either. Doing this, the doctor is just prolonging the patient's suffering.
Artificial feeding through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy(
Many patients want their doctors to help them end their life with dignity, because they can no longer tolerate their suffering. There are situations in which it isn't just ethically justified, but in which doctors have a duty to do this. There are myriad situations in which a doctor is called upon to relieve the suffering of someone who is severely ill, and in a hopeless situation, and to conduct this in the manner in which the patient wants. In this sense, the doctor should see assisted suicide as a kind of palliative measure.
In a spirit of compassion for all, every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankind's ultimate civil and personal liberty, the right to die in a manner and at a time of his own choosing. Whereas modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity, it cannot entirely solve the pain and distress of the dying process.
Basil Venitis, twitter.com/
Live and Let Die(1973) is the eighth spy film in the James Bond series, and the first to star Roger Moore as the fictional 007 agent James Bond. Venitis notes that euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a life in a painless manner, to live and let die. Euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain, provides a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low, frees up huge medical funds from diminishing returns on health to help other people, is manifestation of selfownership.
Venitis asserts that euthanasia is the most humane and sympathetic way one can end life. By committing euthanasia, one is giving the power to a medical professional to end one's life. This may be a personal issue, or one that is given to a person by way of a durable power of attorney. In both cases, drugs are either given or withheld to facilitate the natural cause of death. Patients who have cancer, AIDS, and other terminal medical conditions with a poor prognosis are those who commonly consider euthanasia.
Euthanasia is now lawful in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the American states of Oregon and Washington. Choosing to hasten death by self-starvation and dehydration should be accompanied by palliative care. Electing to die by terminal sedation is also a choice provided it is freely made by the patient. Living Wills and Durable Powers of Attorney for Health Care must be respectfully considered by medical professionals at all times. The most deadly substance on the market is pentobarbital, aka nembutal, that is a barbiturate and powerful sleep-aid. It is usually the substance used in medical euthanasia where that action is legal.
Venitis notes that kleptocrats oppose euthanasia, not for religulous reasons, but because they want many slaves around to pay taxes, with most of the loot finding its way to the secret offshore accounts of kleprocrats. Most Europeans want the establshment of euthanasia. Why a poor old guy who suffers from huge pain cannot escape from his misery to the other side?
No comments:
Post a Comment