now...TADAAAAAA... "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS"...

The bill earmarks $2,000,000 dollars between 2010 and 2014 to have the US State Department produce an "Annual Report on the Status of Freedom of the Press Worldwide" and administer a freedom of the press grant program that "should promote and broaden press freedoms by strengthening the independence of journalists and media organizations" worldwide.

A GOVERNMENT GRANT...which "STRENGTHENS" JOURNALISTIC INDEPENDANCE ? that would be the joke of the century. They are on CRACK!

This is INCOME RE-DISTRIBUTION on a grand scale to reward 'favored' Journalists who toe the Democratic party line and PUNISH those who do not.

How does this relate to the topic ? :) simple.. if you report 'unfavorable' things about Obama.. such as "They want to ration health care and cull the old" you will go on the 'list' of

"those never to be rewarded, but rather SHAMED

Dear Celivia,
My problem is not about Death it is about choice. Man has a God given right to freedom of choice. It is an individual's choice not a society choice. For example if I decide that you personaly offend me by your beliefs so I decide that you must die I do not believe that I have the right to impose MY WILL on you as it is moraly wrong. Jesus died for all people not just the religious. We live in an imperfect world and I agree with you I was very horefide when they starved that poor woman to death in USA on TV but on a personal note a doctor said I wouldn't make it and they withheld all treatment until my family informed them that I had private health cover and I was sent to a private hospital in the city where I recieved treatment and made a good recovery so that I again enjoy life and if euthenasia was available I would now be pushing up daisies not enjoying my family. I thank God for my wife and children who stood up for my rights.

What a truly strange article with frankly bizarre reasoning. What sane person would lament the days when people lost children in childbirth or died at 18 and then use this to argue against increased lifespan?? Its clear that increased average lifespan indicates better living conditions and an increasingly productive society over time, yet Brian wants to reverse this trend.

This is the work of a misanthropic atheist no doubt. This author has indicated in the past that he believes humans are a burden to the planet anyway. Yet, he is confused and contradicted.Here he tells the inspiring tale of a 97 yr old!

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7106

The people who expect the most from Healthcare are those who have paid the LEAST into the system. The elderly have built the system with their taxes. Why shouldn't they be looked after? Their contribution has already taken place.

1. Do we deny medical care for all self inflicted injuries such as suicide attempts etc?

2. Do we deny medical care to those who don't exercise and eat properly?

3. Do we eliminate unhealthy babies?

4. Do we deny medical care for preventable accidents?

5. Should the unemployed get health care?

This is where Brian's logic is heading. Eliminate "burdens". Attack the most vulnerable group first and then work your way up? BTW he is also an advocate of "selective sterilisation". http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8304&page=3 (last sentence)

Let's face it, he doesn't like human beings much.

He writes

"In the context of history, anybody today who reaches the age of 80, has had far more than his or her fair share."
Does Brian include himself and his 97 yr old explorer friend in his Soylent Green approach? Oddly, no. Maybe Greenies are exempt.

Its not just about money, its about caring for ill people who have contributed much to the world and who now cannot care for themselves.

Don't dehumanise the elderly because they can't walk or communicate or defend themselves.

DavidG,
So true. Patients, who know that euthanasia is available whenever they need it, have more strength to cope with the pain and the disease once the fear has been taken away.

“It’s a variation of the I-will-tell-you-how-to-divide-up-the-cake, pitch.”
Good observation, Horus!

Hi Richie,
“… if euthanasia was available I would now be pushing up daisies not enjoying my family.”
But if euthanasia had been legal, it would’ve been against the law to kill you without you specifically requesting it. Before euthanasia could’ve been granted, you would have had to be examined not only by a psychiater but by several doctors/specialists- not just one. They all would have had to agree that there would be no existing treatment available for you, you would have been informed. If you had been unconscious, you wouldn’t have been able to request euthanasia so it wouldn’t have happened. In countries where euthanasia is legal, it is always voluntary- the patient is not offered the option but instead needs to request it several times, and is examined by a few doctors/specialists. In the Netherlands, 70% of patients who requested euthanasia, have been denied it because there were still alternatives available.

Brian Holden is talking about involuntary, passive ‘euthanasia’, really, something which is very cruel and beyond patients’ control. People should be in control, and as you said, have the choice at all times, no matter what age they are!

AiR,
people suffering from dementia are not legible to request euthanasia. One would have needed to organise euthanasia forms while still in good state of mind. My mother and uncle have their papers ready. It involved a psychiatric assessment and several talks to her GP. The questions are very specific and intrinsic. If she was to suffer from dementia later in life, and she would suffer from an illness with no outlook on recovery, one would look at her medical papers to see at which stage she would want to be euthanised.

Ladies, Ladies, Ladies & Left Wing Nuts, its not just me anymore, plenty of other commentators have asked the questions.

1, Do you support euthanizing seriously deformed babies or the "cruel & unusual punishment" of keeping them alive for all of their miserable, painful, zero quality of, lives? Lots of taxes for 80 years could be directed towards somebody else, more deserving of treatment.

2, What about providing "free medicare" fertility medicine to women who choose to ignore their biological clock & try to conceive after age 27? Or expensive obstetrics caused by birthing past age 27?

3, What about, "Accidents" lots of people, all ages being injured on roads, at work, etc?

4, Do you support "Nice" having a branch office in OZ?

5, Where do you want the taxes saved to go? To India as the article author was implying? Or to Aboriginal health care, they have a very different life expectancy to us?

6, What about self abusers, smokers, drinkers, drug users, over eaters?

7, One does wonder about the political connections of this debate? Brian Holden is an old lefty from way back? The positive commentators appear to be mostly left of centre? Conservative political views, get progressively more popular with age? The demographics of our baby boom bulge is looking awfully bad for the red/green/getup/labour coalition?

8, Soylent green anyone?

9, BTW, on a more personal note, i don't wish to donate my organs for transplant as many people on the lists, got there by self abuse, their bodies are damaged by the rejection & other drugs, adult stem cell research is far more likely to come up with a better solution for body repair?

10, Also i most definitely do NOT want to be buried or cremated but have my body, minus any "non organic" prosthetic devices put through an industrial meat grinder like they have in abattoirs, that can grind up bones, teeth, etc. Then my body could be composted. Want my wish granted ASAP Lefties?

How did discussion of voluntary euthanasia turn into forced death camps for the elderly and Soylent Green?

Most of those who support voluntary euthanasia within strict guidelines have also clearly stated that all life should be valued. If it is of no value to the person concerned due to incessant pain and suffering who are we to insist they must endure it?