eugenics anyone?

by ninja 76 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    eugenics anyone?

    I disagree with the apparent premise.

    Questions of race/lineage are thoroughly outdated and ignorant.

    Directed breeding/eugenics will soon be thoroughly obsolete and unneccessary for anyone wanting to improve humanity in some way--whether good or bad. With molecular level modifications becoming a reality, individuals will be able to retroactively modify their genome and other aspects of themselves and improve what they percieve as flaws or weaknesses. We can already see what a huge business cosmetic surgery has become at the macro level. Micro level modifications will open up new doors for extropians.

    BTS

  • rebel8
    rebel8
    Should scientists have absolute authority on who gets to breed? Probably not, IMHO.
    Probably not?

    Probably not, as in, I have not put the time and research into forming an absolute opinion on the matter.

    Why? Probably because it is a theoretical question. This situation will never play out IRL, and if it did, it wouldn't affect me personally.

    Pardon me while I go fix the Middle East Crisis and do a little shopping. kthxbai

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected
    Probably not, as in, I have not put the time and research into forming an absolute opinion on the matter.

    Ok, be sure to get back to us once you've done your research.

  • rebel8
    rebel8
    Ok, be sure to get back to us once you've done your research.

    No.

    I will not be doing research on it nor will I spoon feed you the results of any information I happen upon.

    And why are you so snarky to me all of the sudden? I thought we were having civil discussions.

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman

    The meeting that was portrayed on the first video was authentic.

    HHS Names Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research

    Those sources, and Dr. Emanuel's viewpoints are on record at several sites.

    It's the interpretations and conclusions of those sources that are debatable.

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman

    I'll let Dr. Emanuel speak for himself:

    Quote:

    The financial crisis and health care

    By Ezekiel J Emanuel
    October 12, 2008


    The financial markets are gyrating. The world economy is teetering. The U.S. government is making a $700 billion or more bailout to avert a worldwide disaster. No surprise, health care has become a side show. Or has it? Not only does this upheaval actually make health-care reform more pressing, it makes comprehensive reform—change in the way health care is paid for and how care is organized and delivered— more realistic and feasible.

    “Socialism” has come to Wall Street. For more than 60 years, Republicans have criticized as “socialized medicine” any reform proposal that gave government a central role in funding health services or in regulating providers.

    The charge has always been false. True socialism requires governmental ownership of the means of production. No health-care reform proposal, even the most ardent single-payer plans, ever suggested the government should employ doctors, or own hospitals, pharmacies, home health-care agencies or drug companies. Moreover, in the current system, the government already pays for more than 40 percent of the health-care bill. With a Republican administration leading the takeover of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, American International Group Inc., and the purchase of housing securities, it hardly seems credible to criticize health-reform plans as socialized anything.

    The phenomenal failure of Wall Street dramatically changes the appetite of the country for regulation and for shoring up the safety net. With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security, and health care is a critical element of that.

    This financial crisis also means Americans may be more willing to forgo gold-plated comprehensive insurance that covers everything with few restrictions. Under the threat of losing everything, Americans may feel content with the guarantee of a decent plan that covers cost-effective treatments with some restrictions on choice and services to save money. This should enhance the chances for a bipartisan deal on health care.

    With politicians and regulators committing $700 billion in a single week, spending a few hundred billion to make the health-care system cover everyone more efficiently and at higher quality begins to look like chump change. This upfront spending can create the infrastructure—such as systematic measurement of quality and patient outcomes—for serious health-care cost savings. After the last several weeks, health-care investment appears more reliable—and politically palatable—than bailing out bankers and other gamblers.

    The huge increase in the federal debt that these bailouts will entail intensifies the pressure to rein in health-care costs. This favors comprehensive rather than incremental reform.

    Before the financial crisis, the most likely options for controlling government health-care costs involved tinkering around the edges—striking a new deal between Medicare and physicians on their pay, initiating more demonstration projects in paying for performance and efficiency, and assessing comparative effectiveness of new tests and treatments.

    While absolutely valuable, these policies are far from certain to control health-care costs—and it will be five or 10 years before they are likely to generate savings. Paradoxically, only more radical changes in the health-care system are likely to actually save money and improve care—and more quickly. For instance, the Wyden-Bennett health-care bill—which proposes more extensive changes than either Barack Obama’s or John McCain’s proposals—is the only health-care legislation scored as budget neutral by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO said that in the first year of full implementation, the expenditures would equal revenues, and in subsequent years the Wyden-Bennett bill would generate a surplus because it would save the health-care system money. The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and management consulting firm, estimated that within a decade this plan could save as much as $1.4 trillion. No other health-care legislation comes close.

    Some will find this comprehensive reform unpalatable because it removes employers from health care altogether. As the economy stagnates, this may be absolutely necessary to keep employers afloat. Facing a rising deficit, more comprehensive reform that can really control costs begins to look more realistic than a few untested adjustments here or there.

    The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It’s beginning to look like we might just have all three.

    While the financial crisis has appeared to knock health care off the national agenda, in the strange chemistry that is American politics, it may in fact make comprehensive health-care reform more politically feasible, indeed maybe even absolutely necessary for fiscal stability.

    Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel is chair of the department of bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health.
    The financial crisis and health care - Chicago Tribune

    The red highlighted areas are mine.

    More of his words:

    Quote:

    "What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?"

    NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman

    Here's the transcript for that YouTube video. Full transcript can be found here - http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs...ipt_june10.doc :

    DR. CONWAY: So we'll do the same format. It will be three minutes, and then time for questions. We'll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
    MR. CHAITKIN: Anton Chaitkin. I'm a historian and a history editor for Executive Intelligence Review. President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there.
    The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill, and poor people, and thus save, as the President says, $2- to $3 trillion by taking lives considered not worthy to be lived, as the Nazi doctors said.
    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington State law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster.
    Dr. Emanuel's movement for bioethics and euthanasia, and this Council's purpose, directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler's killing of patients, and then other costly and supposedly unworthy people. Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12th that a crisis, war, and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program.
    Hitler told Dr. Brandt, his in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the Hippocratic oath should be junked. Doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
    You on the Council are drawing up the procedures to list to be used to deny care, which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
    Disband this Council and reverse the whole course of this Nazi revival now.
    DR. CONWAY: Thank you.

    8 MINUTES LATER……..

    A quick break. I'm going to ask for questions and comments.
    Ms. Zuckerman, if you can come up, and I'm opening it up to the panel. Yes, we are still going to Ms. Williams, you are still going to get to talk. I'm going to ask Ms. Zuckerman to come up and join you.
    We're going to take a quick stop in the panel to open it up for comments or questions, because we have a few folks who have to potentially go. The whole transcript will be available, though, and all comments will be shared with all Council members.
    DR. EMANUEL: I apologize that I have to go back to an important meeting. I do want to just clarify one thing about my own since my reputation has been besmirched here, is I think I do have a very long record of writing against the legalization of euthanasia.
    So the association of me and that seemed a little strange given I don't know at least 30 years or 25 years of writing on the topic, against the legalization. So just to clarify the record for everyone in the room.
    Thank you.
    MR. CHAITKIN: You stated that you were opposed to assisted suicide, but that you are in favor of the withdrawal of medical care, which accomplishes the same thing. So you had this article?
    DR. CONWAY: Sir, your statement was read into the record. It's not the time for debate, but we appreciate your comments. And we apologize for the break in the panel, but we just wanted to have that break.

  • ninja
  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    Oh, Ninja. Those scientists are very, very intelligent. They have high IQs which equates with them knowing what's best for us. So, it's probably nothing to worry about.

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman
    Oh, Ninja. Those scientists are very, very intelligent. They have high IQs which equates with them knowing what's best for us. So, it's probably nothing to worry about.

    Well, in that case, you can kiss your balls goodbye then.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit