Elderly Woman Pays $14,000 to be Euthanized at Swiss Death Facility

Suicide22n 1 web 580 0

Oriella Cazzanello. Source: Daily News.

I’ve been wondering how much it costs to have someone euthanized. I’ve also been wondering what kind of people perform this “service” of legally murdering others.

I’m still in the dark about the second question, but it appears the answer to the first is $14,000.

That’s what an Italian woman, who, according to reports was in good health, paid a Swiss death facility to put her down in much the same way the Copenhagen Zoo puts down unwanted giraffes. The major difference, so far as I can see, is that they didn’t feed this woman’s body to the lions.

The woman in question, 85-year-old Oriella Cazzanello, hired these fine folks to kill her because she was depressed about aging and upset that she was losing her looks. She vanished from her home in January, evidently without telling her family, who thought she gone on a spa break. When she didn’t show up, her family became worried about her disappearance and started looking.

They learned that Ms Cazzanello had been murdered by lethal injection when the death facility mailed her ashes and the death certificate to her attorney.

It sounds like Ms Cazzanello is another unhappy, well-to-do woman who should have stayed away from Switzerland and its business of dealing death.

My question: Do you really have to be a catechism-following Catholic to see something wrong with this?

From the Daily News:

A perfectly healthy Italian woman paid $14,000 to commit suicide at a Swiss euthanasia clinic because she was “sad about losing her looks.”

Oriella Cazzanello, 85, reportedly took her own life at the right-to-die center in Basel after getting “weighed down by ageing and the inevitable loss of the looks of which she was proud.”

RELATED: NEW MEXICO JUDGE RULES TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS CAN SEEK HELP WITH SUICIDE

The wealthy senior vanished from her home in Arzignano at the end of January, reports the ANSA news agency.

Family members initially thought she’d gone on a spa break.

Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, but there is a huge amount of controversy over the business.

STEFFEN SCHMIDT/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, but there is a huge amount of controversy over the busines

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/italian-woman-pays-14g-commit-suicide-due-losing-article-1.1622200#ixzz2u4HLdFPa

Swiss Study Indicates Lonely, Unbelieving Women are Most Likely Euthanasia Victims

Grim Reaper

So who pays other people to murder them?

A new study gives us a profile of the typical victim of euthanasia. 

According to the Swiss study, 16% of the people euthanized did not have an underlying medical problem, or at least not one that was recorded on the death certificate. In 84% of the cases, the death certificate did list at least one underlying cause for euthanizing the victim.

A previous study showed that 25% of those who were euthanized did not have a fatal illness. In a number of cases, mood disorders and mental or behavioral disorders were given as the primary underlying reason the people were euthanized.

According to the study, those most likely to request assisted suicide were well-educated women from areas of a higher socio-economic standing. Those who live alone or were divorced were 50% more likely to be euthanized. Nonbelievers were 6 times more likely to seek death than Catholics. 

Maybe we should issue travel advisories warning well-to-do, unhappy atheist women who live alone to stay away from Switzerland. 

From the MailOnline:

Women, highly educated, divorced and rich people are more likely to die from assisted suicide, new research has revealed.


Researchers in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, found that of people helped by right-to-die organisations such as Dignitas, around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. 

They say this indicates that an increasing number of people may simply becoming ‘weary of life’.


 
Of people helped by right-to-die organisations in Switzerland, such as Dignitas (pictured), around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. - suggesting they were 'weary of life'

Of people helped by right-to-die organisations in Switzerland, such as Dignitas (pictured), around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. – suggesting they were ‘weary of life’

 

The research, published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology – that shows assisted suicide is more common in women, the divorced, those living alone, the more educated, those with no religious affiliation, and those from wealthier areas.


A previous study of suicides by two right-to-die organizations showed that 25 per cent of those assisted had no fatal illness, instead citing ‘weariness of life’ as a factor.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2562850/Women-divorcees-atheists-likely-choose-assisted-suicide-nearly-20-saying-simply-weary-life.html#ixzz2tzYs8ZYM 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

University of Texas Scientists Grow Human Lung in a Lab

Lungs x ray

Science fiction is moving toward science fact, and that can be good news for a lot of people.

University of Texas scientists grew a human lung in a laboratory. Then, they did it again.

The lungs were grown from cells obtained from the lungs of children who were killed in an accident. Their lungs were too damaged to be used in transplant. Joan Nichols, a researcher at the University of Texas, Medical Branch, says it will be about 12 years before laboratory-grown lungs are ready to be used in human transplants.

If the CNN story is accurate, nobody was killed, paid money to have their body harvested, or was otherwise exploited to grow these lungs. That means there is no moral impediment to using them when they become available.

From CNN Health:

(CNN) – For the first time, scientists have created human lungs in a lab — an exciting step forward in regenerative medicine, but an advance that likely won’t help patients for many years.

“It’s so darn cool,” said Joan Nichols, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch. “It’s been science fiction and we’re moving into science fact.”

If the lungs work — and that’s a big if — they could help the more than 1,600 people awaiting a lung transplant. Lungs are one of many body parts being manufactured in the lab — some parts, such as tracheas and livers, are even further along.

“Whole-organ engineering is going to work as a solution to the organ donor shortage,” said Dr. Stephen Badylak, deputy director of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

Image A is before new cells were reseeded. The finished product is image B.
Image A is before new cells were reseeded. The finished product is image B.

New transplant technology keeps organs ‘alive’ outside body

The researchers in Galveston, Texas, started with lungs from two children who’d died from trauma, most likely a car accident, Nichols said. Their lungs were too damaged to be used for transplantation, but they did have some healthy tissue.

They took one of the lungs and stripped away nearly everything, leaving a scaffolding of collagen and elastin.

The scientists then took cells from the other lung and put them on the scaffolding. They immersed the structure in a large chamber filled with a liquid “resembling Kool-Aid,” Nichols said, which provided nutrients for the cells to grow. After about four weeks, an engineered human lung emerged.

 

Abortions for Valentine’s Day. Gotta Love It.

Cecile Richards cropped

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

 

I know what my husband is going to get me for Valentine’s Day.

I know because I told him what to get.

I’m no fool. I know better than to just send him off to wander around in a store and come back with a slow cooker or a set of wrenches or maybe a case of the real man’s answer to every question in life: WD40.

I’m not going to share my request on this blog.That’s between me and my guy. But one thing I will say is that it is not on the list of things that Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, says that women want for Valentine’s Day. According to her, women need “really radical stuff” like

  • Preventive care
  • Birth control
  • Cancer screenings
  • Safe and legal abortion
  • Well women visits
  • Preventive care
  • Maternity care
  • Or, in other words, women need Planned Parenthood.

Before I jump off on the obvious. I’d like to point out a couple of things. First, this itty-bitty list is all that Planned Parenthood says that it does to earn the 4-5 hundred million dollars in tax payer funding that it receives each year. Second, several of the items on this list are duplicated. “Cancer screenings” and “preventive care/well women visits,” are the same thing.

So, if you reduce it down to what she’s actually claiming, Planned Parenthood itself admits that it provides (1) abortions, (2) pap smears, (3) birth control and (4) maternity care. I don’t know what kind of maternity care they are talking about. Is she claiming that women receive obstetrical care for the full nine months of pregnancy, as well as delivery care (including c-sections, blood transfusions, etc, if needed) and follow-up care for a couple of months afterwards?

That is what “maternity care” means to me. If Planned Parenthood provides this level of care, I am unaware of it. I did notice that “mammograms” were nowhere on the list, probably because Planned Parenthood’s repeated lies about this service have been exposed.

So, what does Planned Parenthood provide for all that money? Their primary business is the supply of dangerous chemical birth control and abortions, and they charge for those. They are not free to their patrons.

And, oh yes, they do a fair amount of lobbying, (paid for out of separate funds) participate in committees such as the one that gave us the HHS Mandate and provide huge amounts of “sex education” to public school students.

So. If women need Planned Parenthood for Valentine’s Day, then what they need is to be indoctrinated in Planned Parenthood’s notion of sexuality, then doped up on expensive and dangerous chemical forms of birth control with an abortion chaser, all to the tune of around half a billion government dollars.

I’m not going to tell anyone what I asked my hubby to get me for Valentine’s Day. But I will share this: It won’t kill anybody, and it costs a lot less than Planned Parenthood.

To see the full tweet Ms Richards sent, go to TownHall.com.

Children Denied Coverage for Serious Medical Conditions Under Obamacare, Hospital Sues Government

Giraffe hero

Seattle Children’s Hospital has filed suit against the government over the failure of Obamacare to provide essential coverage to children.

Specifically, the insurers in Washington state’s Insurance Network are excluding major hospitals from their networks. They then deny payment for essential medical care for serious medical conditions when patients need the kind of care that only these hospitals can provide.

Seattle Children’s Hospital is ranked as one of the best hospitals in the United States. It ranked in the top twenty hospitals for 10 specialities, including a number six ranking for children’s cancer treatment. A number of Obamacare insurance providers are denying coverage for treatment at this hospital.

It seems to me that for an insurer to refuse coverage for care at hospitals like Seattle Children’s Hospital is tantamount to saying that their plan does not provide full coverage. Plans that only provide coverage for every day illnesses at second and third tier institutions should not be allowed to market themselves as full insurance coverage.

YouTube Preview Image

Four-Year-Old Girl and Her Family Ask Belgian King to Block Euthanasia of Children

Jessicasaba

Speaking of child abuse, legislators in Belgium are moving toward passage of a law that would allow doctors to euthanize children.

It all began in 2002 with a law that allowed doctors in Belgium to kill their patients who were (a) at least 18 years old, (b) of sound mind, and (c) gave their consent. Left out of this (of course) was just how questionable “consent” becomes when families and medical practitioners go at a sick person who is probably also isolated and totally dependent on them for their emotional and physical well being.

This “right” morphed a bit in 2013 when doctors began killing people who were not terminally ill, but merely facing a disability. Now, the idea of extending this “right to die” to children and people suffering from dementia is moving toward legality.

The family of four-year-old Jessica Saba has stepped into the debate to ask King Philippe to block euthanasia for children like her. I say “like her” because Jessica was born with a heart defect that required surgery to allow her to live.

You know what that kind of surgery is, don’t you? It’s expensive.

Whereas, killing the child would be oh, so much cheaper, not to mention alleviating the “suffering” of her parents and saving the baby herself from that painful wake-up from anesthesia which any surgery patent knows all too well.

When you look at it that way, it’s a blessing to kill little kids. Who could be so cruel as to deprive them of their “right” to die?

As for those difficult dementia patients, aren’t their “useful” lives over anyway? Think how much better it would be for families if they weren’t burdened with the trouble of taking care of Grandma. As for the expense, everyone knows that end of life care racks up the bucks.

I apologize for being so sarcastic. But I am at my wit’s end with people who try to justify legalized medical murder by flinging around ridiculous arguments about how killing people is a kindness to them and their “right.”

The killing of innocents is not a “human right” and it is not a kindness.

We are creating a society where we kill everyone who does not have the capacity to actively defend their life in a courtroom. If someone who can stand upright and vocalize sophisticated arguments does not speak up for them — and in certain cases such as the judicial murder of Terry Shiavo, even if they do — they can and will be killed by doctors obeying a court order. All that needs to happen is for someone else with what the court decides is “standing” to petition the court that they want their “loved one” dead.

1828189207

I hope and pray that the lawmakers of Belgium get a grip and stop this legislation themselves. But if that does not happen, we can only hope that King Philippe will step in. I assume there will be an enormous political price to pay if he does.

That is an interesting remark, isn’t it? We have come to the place in our “civilized” Western world where the political danger lies in refusing to allow oneself to be made into the executioner of little children and helpless old people.

I do not ever take a destabilizing action in governance lightly, and I assume that is what this could be. My basic premise of governance is that a just and stable government is always the greater good. However, a government that kills its old people and little children is not just. There are times when the decision is so fraught that there truly is no other option but to take the possibly destabilizing path.

Every lawmaker from the king down who says yes to this will have done something that puts them beyond the pale of civilized behavior. Every person who lobbies for it, or votes for those who pass it, will have made themselves an accomplice to it.

If the king signs this, he will make of himself the executioner of little children and helpless old people. Could you sign it? Would you?

I hope the lawmakers say no. If they don’t, I hope the king says no.

Whatever the political consequences, they are nothing compared to the moral consequences of having said yes to this measure.

YouTube Preview Image

They’re Going to Die Anyway

One doctor’s answer to the argument that the baby is going to die anyway. This doctor also explains how Obamacare violates the consciences of medical practitioners with its enforcement of abortion at any cost.

As a side note, I know a number of people who have healthy children that they were told to abort because the baby supposedly had a terminal illness or grave disability and, when they refused the abortion (often they were under serious duress from their doctors to abort) the baby turned out to be fine.

YouTube Preview Image

Cough. “Women’s Health” Looks a Lot Like the Old Double Standard.

MP900321069 300x214 1

Oklahoma is having a bit of a kerfluffle over the morning after pill.

On one side, we have a law that passed last session, simply requiring a prescription for the morning after pill for minors.

On the other side, we have the self-appointed, self-annointed arbiters of a narrow and monstrously patriarchal ideology of feminism that says that women’s human rights center entirely around the pelvic region. The whole purpose of “women’s health” and “women’s rights” as they are pushed by these people, is not the welfare of young girls. It is making them sexually available.

The pink-shirted spokespeople for this viewpoint hold that every girl needs to dose herself with dangerous chemical forms of birth control. If that fails, every girl must then avail herself of even more dangerous and higher dosages of chemicals in the form of the morning after pill. If that fails, well, then, it’s off to the abortion clinic.

And then, I suppose, back into the back seats of cars.

Because, you see, “everybody” has sex at 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, whether they want to or not. And “everybody” needs to make sure that this sex they’re having in this randomized, callous hook-up culture that deprives them of intimacy, tenderness and caring is “safe.” 

Safe, I wonder, from what? And safe for whom?

Anytime we talk about the “teen pregnancy problem” in this country, the talk is all about how to dose young girls with as many hormones as we can possibly get into their young bodies. While Oklahoma argues about niceties like required prescriptions, New York is passing these same drugs out to school girls like candy.

Because, you see, it is well-known that we have a “teen pregnancy problem,” and the cause of this problem is that young girls aren’t properly dosed up with hormones. It has nothing … I repeat; nothing … to do with the fact that young girls in our society no longer feel free to say “no” to sexual advances.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that young girls (and boys) are so Daddy deprived, so hungry for anything that passes for male approval, that they do not have enough self to stand against the tide of exhortations, “education,” peer pressure and constant drum beat of messages from the media to demand what they want.

And what do they want? I would guess that young girls want what every other person on this planet wants: To be valued for themselves. The sick sadness of teaching them that they should search for this in random sex is beyond comprehension. 

How is pushing dangerous chemicals on them anything other than an attack on young girls’ health? How is encouraging them to be sexually available and taking away their freedom to say no anything other than a blatant destruction of their developing sense of self? 

How does targeting young girls as the way to deal with the “teen pregnancy problem” as if it was their problem alone manage to become women’s rights? Isn’t it obviously … and I say again, obviously … just the old sexual double standard all dressed up in a money-making bonanza for the people who run the bogus sex education classes and make money off pushing chemical birth control with an abortion chaser on our school kids?

This is not “women’s health.” It is also not “women’s rights.” 

It’s the double standard, in all its dehumanizing, death-dealing force, come back around again. 

This article from a few months ago, describes the situation. From the Daily Mail:

Hooked on the morning after pill

It used to be a last resort. Now a generation of young women use it as their regular contraceptive – with potentially devastating consequences

 

By JULIA LLEWELLYN SMITH

 

Tania Mirmothari was worried sick. The previous night, the 19-year-old from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had had yet another drunken one-night stand.

Carefree at the time, the following morning she’d woken with a thumping hangover, horrified at the realisation she might be pregnant.

There was only one thing for it: Tania went to her local walk-in health centre and asked for the morning-after pill.

 
Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill
 
 

Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill


As she sat in the waiting room, she cringed with humiliation. Shockingly, this was Tania’s fifth visit that year. Four other times in the past 12 months she’d found herself sitting, red-faced, in the same clinic, waiting for her prescription. 

 

‘I look back with shame,’ says Tania, who is now 22, and in a long-term relationship while training to be a social worker. ‘I was just out getting drunk, messing about and being stupid, having one-night stands with boys who did not mean anything to me.


‘But going to the walk-in centre, I started to feel really embarrassed. I saw the same lady each time and she recognised me. I dreaded having to ask for the prescription, but then, what could I do?’

Many might argue that, actually, there were quite a few things Tania could have done: not drinking herself into oblivion every weekend was one; not falling into bed with a stranger another; and using contraception a third.

Like a growing number of young girls in our binge-drinking culture, however, such precautions would be abandoned around the time of her fifth vodka and coke.


‘I have friends who’ve taken it three times in one month. There’s so much pressure on us to be sexually active’

And at the back of her inebriated mind was the knowledge that, whoever she woke up with the next day, she’d be able to get hold of the morning-after pill just as easily as a paracetamol — or the next round of drinks.


Not so long ago, the morning-after pill was viewed very much as a last resort, described by health professionals as ‘emergency contraception’. It was designed for use in the rare event of regular contraceptives failing. But since it was made readily available over the counter 11 years ago, not to mention being increasingly accessible online, young women like Tania are taking it not in emergencies, but whenever it suits them, as their preferred method of contraception.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2142089/Hooked-morning-pill-It-used-resort-Now-generation-young-women-use-regular-contraceptive–potentially-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2rdDI9PuP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Lock Up Your Babies and Little Old Ladies. It’s Killing Time in New Mexico.

 

8b45421bea39e2a42ea97b0eef253d2a

 

You know those magazine articles and internet blogs detailing the best places in America to retire?

You can take New Mexico off the list.

Judge Nan Nash, a family court judge from the New Mexico second judicial district, has decided it’s time to let New Mexico doctors legally kill their patients. Anyone with half a brain knows that, despite the judge’s contentions, that means primarily and mostly our old people.

You can read her findings here. If you do, you’ll notice that she makes quite a few unsupported assumptions to get to her conclusion, which is that doctors in New Mexico can now kill their patients.

You can dress it up all you want, but that’s what euthanasia is: A license to kill.

You can call it “mercy” and “compassion” and whatever nonsensical appellation you can dream up to hang on it. But it’s killing people who have become a “burden.”

I hesitate to reference Hitler, especially after my explication here, but sometimes, only a reference to one of the masters of Godless killing of the 20th Century fits the “progressive” things we are doing to ourselves in America today. Euthanasia of the sick and the elderly is just Hitler’s “solution” for what he called “useless eaters” one step removed.

Proponents of euthanasia describe a fantasyland world where we can give people the legal right to kill other people and it won’t ever be abused. They live in a world where euthanasia is palliative care to ease people out of the inhuman suffering that the same medical profession we are giving the right to kill them inflicted on them in the first place. They erect all sorts of pretty little fences around their medical killing fields, and then pretend that those fences actually serve to keep the killers out.

But the truth of the matter is that human beings will kill with impunity if you allow them to kill at all. The line between a doctor and a killer is the law. Doctors have the power to kill their patents in a thousand unseen ways. They do it by accident all the time. They always, from the time you submit yourself to their care, have the power to kill you.

But when we blur the lines around how they can use that power to allow them to deliberately and willfully kill their patients in one little “extreme” instance and another instance and another one over there, we have opened the door to the idea that it is permissible for doctors to kill their patients.

All the pretty little legal fences in the world cannot undo the bedrock change in philosophy and attitude that comes riding in on that permission. After you break down the barrier between healing and killing of patients, everything else is fine print.

I say this as someone who is “burdened” as the world sees it with an elderly parent: You don’t have to kill people. All you have to do is love them and take care of them. Life is worth living, even at its twilight. People are precious, even when they can’t do anything for us anymore and we have to do for them.

Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God Almighty and, with the single exception of self defense, you may not kill them. 

Human life belongs to God. It is His to give, and His to take. It is ours to live.

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become that our society allows this.

I could go off into long-winded explanations as to why euthanasia is wrong and unnecessary and (dare I say it) a mortal sin that can get you sent to flaming hell for eternity. I’ve done it before. And I imagine I’ll do it again.

But for today, I’m doing to repeat one statement that I think says it all:

What a bunch of inhuman monsters we have become.

Brit Hume: The Moral Case for Abortion on Demand Grows Ever Weaker

“The moral case for allowing such beings to be killed grows ever weaker, and its advocates resort to ever more absurd euphemisms to describe what they support.” Brit Hume

YouTube Preview Image


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X