From: Vicky Davis
I am so happy they released this report because I have been squawking the
alarm that this mindset has risen from the graves of Nazi Germany and the
nationalized, networked medical records systems that are being built under the
facade of 'health care reform' will allow them to engage in surreptitious human
experimentation and eugenics.
Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/04/national/a211414D76.DTL&hw=pandemic&sn=001&sc=1000
Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu
pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to
let die.
Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific
list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include
the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and
those with severe dementia.
The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from
prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies.
They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so
that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another
widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a
critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.
The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources — including
ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses — are used in a uniform, objective
way, task force members said.
Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May
edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest
Physicians.
"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many
people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care
system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to
deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states.
To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike
task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force
wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance
of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and
include:
_People older than 85.
_Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car
crashes and shootings.
_Severely burned patients older than 60.
_Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced
Alzheimer's disease.
_Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure,
lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.
Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations
office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force.
He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of
preparedness efforts.
Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called
the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal
minefield."
The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age
discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the
task force.
If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most
disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and
disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass
disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here."
James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association,
said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own
preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions.
He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited
health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive.
Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been
recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed
one I have seen from a professional group."
While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could
help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said.
Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for
everyone."
That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before
such a health care disaster hits, she said.
"You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise.
We didn't even know it existed."
*************************
[Note from Vicky - once again, here is the article I wrote on the
nationalized system that is being built
http://www.channelingreality.com/News/ehealth_initiative.htm
http://www.channelingreality.com/News/it_systems_and_medical_research.htm
