Off-Guardian has a very troubling article about this. It raises questions that deserve thorough investigation and in-depth answers - but I'm willing to be the powers that be won't provide either. The article concentrates on British care facilities, but cites US sources too - and I'll be very surprised if the problem isn't the same here as there.
The rise in the use of Do Not Resuscitate orders (DNRs), and the suggestion that patients are being compelled to sign them, or even having them signed on their behalf in secret, has been one of the more concerning narratives to come out of the last year of “pandemic”.
As early as April of 2020, entirely mainstream publications, such as the Health Service Journal (HSJ), were running articles expressing concern over the “unprecedented” rise in “illegal” DNR orders for those with learning disabilities.
In June 2020 the Independent picked up the story, citing some troubling examples found by charity workers and family members ... we’re not just talking about people who are terminally or even severely ill. Autism, sight loss and epilepsy are not conditions that would ever, under normal circumstances, have patients deemed unworthy of receiving life-saving treatment.
It wasn’t just the ill or disabled who fell victim to this, either. In June last year, it was revealed that “blanket” DNRs had been applied to nursing homes by GPs all around the country.
. . .
This policy was not solely isolated to the UK either. The “Undercover Nurse” reported in Perspectives on the Pandemic, the hospital she worked at in New York had widespread abuse of the DNR system, and Rosemary Frei wrote an article breaking down the way deaths were “created” in Canadian care homes.
So, we know that people have – in all likelihood – been allowed to die during this pandemic. That has been as good as officially admitted. But does it go further? Are people being actively euthanised?
Euthanasia has already been hinted at by other whistleblowers, specifically through the use of ventilators on patients who never needed them ... it’s very probable that this did a lot more harm than good, killing huge numbers of patients who may otherwise have survived (though obviously it cannot be proven – at this stage – that this was deliberate).
. . .
How much of the UK’s excess mortality in 2020 – currently attributed to Covid19 – was in fact caused by these callous (and potentially criminal) practices?
And, more importantly, was that all part of a plan? Were these people deliberately allowed to die in order to create an illusory “pandemic”?
There's more at the link.
I note that the article was published on June 22, but it's been greeted with a deafening silence from British officialdom since then. The silence is so deafening, in fact, that it makes me suspicious. Surely, if aspersions such as those had been cast at us, we'd rush to defend ourselves? The fact that the British medical establishment hasn't even bothered to acknowledge that the allegations were made makes me wonder.
There's also the existence of the so-called "Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient" (now officially withdrawn, but according to some reports, still applied in some cases). In so many words, this called for the deliberate cessation of treatment for patients considered terminally ill, except for "palliative care" that might - or might not - include nutrition and hydration. The patients and their loved ones were typically not consulted or given any say in the decision - it was all up to the doctors. There are plenty of horror stories about people left to die, abandoned by nurses and doctors with callous indifference. (Follow that link for some truly ghastly accounts of what happened.) How such a policy could even be conceived, let alone implemented, is mind-boggling . . . but that's what happens when money is given priority over human lives, and bureaucrats make decisions on budgetary grounds. Looking at how many COVID-19 patients were handled in some states (yes, New York, I'm looking at you, where your Governor sent COVID-positive patients back to nursing homes where they could - and did - infect and kill thousands of others), one can't help but wonder whether that was deliberate, too.
This is what happens when we let bureaucrats make decisions on statistical grounds. They're going to look at "the greatest good for the greatest number", and decide that it's better to deploy resources to help this group rather than that group, because society has more and/or better use for the former than the latter. There's precious little regard for human life as such, and as a whole, in that approach, because human life is not regarded as having value in and of itself. Only its utility for society and the State is taken into account - and those are subjective judgments.
That's not a comforting thought to those of us who are growing old, and seeing the State give less and less importance to what we need versus what it wants. Unless we have substantial private means, we're likely to be discarded too. Does that make you feel valued by your country and your government?