DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PLAN TO DENY ELDERLY LIFESAVING DRUGS – Last Friday we published an article on the issue of euthanasia after one UK doctor announced that whilst the practice was illegal in the UK it was in fact quietly going; even to the point where terminally ill children were being put to death.
There are, in my view, amicable grounds for both providing and denying people with the right to take their own lives or seek assistance to achieve their own death.
With Belgium recently announcing that it is now lawful to end the life of a terminally ill child, with the consent of the child and its parents, we are once again faced with the morality of such an act and the debate of will continue to divide us.
Again the act of euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal in Britain but according to some the practice does exist.
Today we have another issue and that is where the Department of Health are seeking to deny elderly patients with lifesaving drugs if they are considered to have had a fair innings – yes they’ve lived a long and fruitful life and the consensus appears to be that priority should be given younger, more economically viable patients.
According to the Department of Health it would allow medical experts to examine the ‘societal benefits’ when deciding to give or deny elderly patients crucial medicines.
It’s not surprising that the NHS rationing body, Nice, and other pro-life groups are somewhat disturbed by the plan for this could be viewed as little more than age cleansing.
The Department of Health proposals would see younger people deemed a higher priority for particular drug treatment simply because they have more time ahead of them and disturbingly have the potential to contribute more to the economy.
Incredulous as it might seem in an era where we are supposed to be enlightened to humanitarian issues it appears the Government are more concerned about the overall cost of caring and treating the elderly.
If the Government can set aside any morality and deny someone lifesaving drugs then isn’t it about time we legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide?
On that note why not bring back the death penalty; after all the cost to the state of imprisoning someone condemned to a life behind bars due to the overwhelming danger to society they pose surely would have merit based upon the Governments concept of saving cash.
There is no denying that Britain has an aging population which is why attracting young immigrants is so essential. Yes we have issues with our immigration system but that’s only because our politicians lack the spine to defy the EU.
We certainly need to attract skilled and youthful workers but current EU legislation doesn’t allow for Britain to pick and choose who can enter and so Britain inevitably ends up attracting more freeloaders.
Britain is broke; in fact if it had been a commercial entity it would have been subjected to bankruptcy decades ago.
The issue here is whether society can afford to support an aging population and it is clear when parts of the Government, such as the Department of Health, start making plans to effectively reduce the numbers that the answer to the question is ‘no’.
The reforms currently under consideration would unquestionably see the supply of drugs being based upon whether society as a whole would benefit with the patient becoming almost inconsequential to the decision.
Will such a social move simply affect the elderly? If such reforms are permitted then what is stopping the Government to looking at other ‘social’ areas of society; that is those living on welfare; surely it could be deemed that such people would take far more out of society than they put in and therefore viewed as less desirable compared to a young person who is ultimately able to generate taxation.
Any such moves would be tantamount to social cleansing and therefore could never be perceived as either moral or just.
Frankly this concept is no better than ethnic cleansing and one that has long been condemned to the history books; well in certain parts of the civilised world at least.
If Government is concerned about the lack of funds available then maybe it’s time that we reassessed where and how taxpayers’ money is spent.
We’ve already explored in the last few weeks the idea of diverting foreign aid in order to assist the flood victims and yet David Cameron has refused to comply with the public’s overwhelming consensus that such a move should be implemented.
We also have the vast cost of keeping the European Parliament solvent; yes billions of pounds annually is being wasted and attributing to the mounting of debt Britain is accumulating on a daily basis.
Through Government legislation we also have a system that forces companies to pay a minimum wage and if such a level is perceived adequate then why are we not forcing all Government workers, regardless of their position to be restricted to minimum wage.
When it comes to Government wasting money the list is almost endless and on top of that we have the ever increasing amounts being stolen through politician’s fiddling their expenses or engaging in practices of corruption.
There are obvious methods we could employ in order to make society a better place but it appears that some in the Government would rather simply kill off those in society that they deem unworthy whilst they live in a gilded cage at the expense of the taxpayer.
Effectively such a plan means that the Government are now intending to put a monetary value on a person’s life; it appears that society under the direction of a few is now regressing and yet there are those who will attempt to convince the public that such a policy is the trait of an economically responsible and progressive society.