BREAKING: Obama State Department was central to the effort to target President @RealDonaldTrump with the Russia smear. New emails show how senior Obama State Department advanced the Russiagate hoax just before the 2016 presidential election.
Princeton prof: Kill severely disabled infants under Obamacare
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 04/19/2015 @ 7:43 pm In Front Page,Health,Money,Politics,U.S.
In a radio interview Sunday, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Singer contended the health-care system under Obamacare should be more overt about rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
Throughout the interview, Singer repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it.”
Singer was speaking on the “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.
The Princeton professor is known for his controversial views on abortion and infanticide. He essentially argues the right to life is related to a being’s capacity for intelligence and to hold life preferences, which in turn is directly related to a capacity to feel and comprehend pain and pleasure.
Klein’s interview with Singer started out on the topic of the professor’s new book about charity, “The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.”
The conversation turned to the issue of terminating disabled infants when Klein asked whether the Singer believes health-care rationing under Obamacare will become more prevalent.
Singer told Klein rationing is already happening, explaining doctors and hospitals routinely make decisions based on costs.
“It’s different in the U.S. system, in a way, because it doesn’t do this overtly; maybe it doesn’t do it as much. And the result is it spends about twice as much on health care as some other countries for very little extra benefit in terms of the outcome.”
Klein quoted from a section of Singer’s 1993 treatise “Practical Ethics,” titled “Taking Life: Humans.”
In the section, Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”
For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.”
Asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.”
If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.
I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child.
So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.
And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.
Klein followed up by asking whether the killing of severely disabled infants should be institutionalized to reduce health-care costs.
Asked Klein: “I know that it happens and it happens certainly if the family gives consent. But do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs, that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?”
Singer responded such a plan would be “quite reasonable” if it saved money that can be used for better purposes. He contended that most people would say they don’t want their premiums to be higher “so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
Singer’s full response:
I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.
I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”
And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”
Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
IT'S WAY PAST TIME TO : "ELIMINATE" PSYCHOTIC THINKING LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE "MURDERERS" LIKE THIS INSANE POS !!!!!!!!!!!
can"t wait for his accident so his plug can be pulled
What! I thought NAZI SS Doctor Josef Mengele died in 1979 in Brazil! But, apparently, he is alive and well and working as a professor at Princeton under the alias Peter Singer!
I was JUST thinking the same thought when I came across your post. WELL DONE & GOOD CALL!
I suspect he's been cloned several times over...
Genocidal Medical Tyranny: Obamacare.
This unethical "ethicist" is typical of the globalist elite's eugenicidal agenda. That a "professor" is advocating killing babies -- a satanic attack on the sanctity of life -- should not surprise us.
The global elite have been "into" eugenics for well over a century, funded by various well-known Foundations. The Nazis learned their genocidal beliefs from earlier eugenicists in America and Britain.
The hideous game continues on many levels; the Princetonian anti-ethics professor is just one example.
Consider also the Global Health Security Initiative, GHSI, a UN-sponsored "public/private" partnership that includes all the usual suspects and which advocates for megadeath.
The leaders of GHSI are proteges of the US Sec Gen who are "social scientists" not unlike the Princeton Prof. They've been published in "peer reviewed" journals advocating for depopulation as the "most cost effective" method of preventing pandemics.
That's right: more dead people (or never-born people) means less disease. That's the logic of the Great Culling planned for us all.
Tell decision makers that you know about their dastardly plans here: http://tinyurl.com/EndGHSI
when will this murderer run for president
This hideous "idea" is nothing other than eugenicist program that has been pushed by the globalist elite for over a century.
It's most recent "official" incarnation is the UN's "public/private partnership" known as the Global Health Security Initiative - GHSI - which proposes that the "most cost effective" way to deal with pandemics is to reduce the number of "vectors and victims" -- that is, reduce the population to save money. It's called "The Great culling.
More about that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gWmVtn5JsA
And more about GHSI, and an action item web form so you can tell your congresscritters that you know what they are up to here: http://tinyurl.com/EndGHSI
There is a REASON the Ebola outbreak didn't have the impact the globalists had hoped it would; The Ebola that was UNLEASHED was a SYNTHETIC variant of the original organism. In other words, it was MAN MADE! While some people were unfortunately susceptible, the molecular structure of this synthetic Ebola was incompatible with a human host on a global scale. It had NOTHING to do with natural immunity. That being said, the World Health Organization learned a great deal from this attempt to "Cull the Human herd"!
I'm an Engineer. I design and build things. If something does not work, I find out WHY it does not work. I take what I learned and then build one that DOES work! I believe there is a very REAL possibility that the Globalists learned from this botched attempt at Biological warfare, and as a result, at some point, they WILL try this again!