The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia Laws: Brian Pickering

From The Daily Declaration

euthanasia

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia Laws

28 DECEMBER 2023

2 MINS

#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">ACT Set to Implement Most Permissive Euthanasia Laws in Australia

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is on the brink of implementing the most permissive euthanasia laws in the country, perpetuating a concerning culture of death.

Unlike other states, the ACT is moving forward without requiring terminally ill patients to have a predicted time of death to access euthanasia. This approach deviates from the rest of the nation, where patients are generally required to have a life expectancy of 6 to 12 months to be eligible for assisted suicide.

While the Federal Government paved the way for euthanasia in the ACT in 2022, the Territory’s continued exploration of expanding its scope is deeply troubling.

The earlier consideration of allowing teenagers as young as 14 to access euthanasia underscores a growing and distressing trend. The Government may have abandoned that specific proposal, but it remains committed to exploring even more controversial paths by considering the inclusion of terminally ill minors and individuals with dementia in the euthanasia framework.

This reflects a stark reality in which the sanctity of life and the value of compassionate palliative care are being overshadowed by an increasing focus on providing state-sanctioned suicide as an alternative. The ACT’s eagerness to push these laws forward neglects the potential negative consequences on the vulnerable, sending a disconcerting message about the worth of human life and the culture it is fostering. The sanctity of life should be protected and cherished, not undermined by a rush towards more permissive euthanasia legislation.

#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">Tragic Euthanasia Choice for Palliative Patient When NDIS Funding Cut

The recent tragedy of James “Jim” Mills is a troubling reminder of the tragic effects of legalised assisted suicide on our society’s most vulnerable. Diagnosed with brain cancer in 2021, Jim’s reliance on repurposed NDIS funding led to a brutal choice when it was abruptly cut, pushing him to opt for euthanasia rather than stay in hospital.

Reinstated funding came too late, illustrating how the existence of euthanasia fundamentally alters incentives for government agencies, healthcare providers, and patients. This scenario also highlights the impact on palliative care, which faces a significant challenge when assisted suicide appears a simpler option.

Jim’s heartbreaking story emphasises that even stringent safeguards around euthanasia and assisted suicide are inadequate, leaving room for individuals to fall through the cracks and experience heartbreaking outcomes for themselves and their families.

#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">Netherlands Euthanising People Just Because They Have Autism

A recent report on euthanising people with autism and intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands is deeply troubling. Cases mentioned in the report, including people with autism aged under 30, set concerning precedents that go beyond the law’s original intent.

It’s distressing that some with autism view euthanasia as a solution, reflecting society’s failure to support vulnerable individuals and hints at a form of eugenics.

We must consider the broader implications and the risk of pressuring our vulnerable into ending their lives. The media’s portrayal of euthanasia as empowerment should not overshadow the ethical, moral and scriptural questions raised by these practices. This report reminds us of the need for a critical examination of these policies.

 

Kurt Mahlburg: Texas Sues Pfizer — and the Lawsuit’s Ripples Could Reach Australia

From the Daily Declaration:

pfizer

Texas Sues Pfizer — and the Lawsuit’s Ripples Could Reach Australia

20 DECEMBER 2023

4.3 MINS

The state of Texas is suing Pfizer for an allegedly defective Covid-19 product in a lawsuit that has grabbed the attention of The Australian.

The State of Texas has launched a major lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for engaging in “false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices” in the marketing of its Covid-19 injectable.

Lodged by Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton late last month after a thorough state investigation, the 54-page suit calls Pfizer’s product “the miracle that wasn’t” and takes particular aim at the company’s “95% effective” claim.

“Placing their trust in Pfizer, hundreds of millions of Americans lined up to receive the vaccine. Contrary to Pfizer’s public statements, however, the pandemic did not end; it got worse,” the petition reads.

“More Americans died in 2021, with Pfizer’s vaccine available, than in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. This, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans received a COVID-19 vaccine, with most taking Pfizer’s.”

Pfizer’s Alleged False Advertising

The lawsuit’s significance was not lost on Australia’s national broadsheet, with Adam Creighton of The Australian warning Tuesday that events in the Lone Star State “could have wide-ranging political ramifications across the developed world”.

“Pfizer appears to have exaggerated the effectiveness of its vac­cines, making unfounded claims that routinely were parroted by governments, health officials and much of the mainstream media,” Creighton wrote.

He continued:

Remember “95 per cent effective”? According to Texas, “0.85 per cent effective” would have been a more accurate sales pitch. Pfizer ran one large clinical trial in 2020 to obtain emergency authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration, which then green-lit the rollout. About 22,000 people were given a placebo and another 22,000 two shots of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine, and the results recorded two months later.

In the placebo group 162 people developed symptomatic Covid-19, but only eight in the vaccinated group, which is how the “95 per cent effective” was calculated. Yet according to the US Food and Drug Administration’s own guidelines this “relative risk reduction” measure is misleading and should at least be accompanied by the “absolute risk reduction”, which in this case was 0.85 per cent (0.9 per cent risk of contracting Covid-19 without vaccination, minus 0.04 per cent with).

Interestingly, the trial didn’t test the groups for asymptomatic Covid-19 using PCR tests, the kind we had to undergo repeatedly for the best part of two years, so who knows how many people in either group were infected. In terms of deaths from all causes across that two-month trial period, 21 people died in the vaccinated group and 17 in the placebo group — the opposite of what one might have expected.

“What’s on trial isn’t merely Pfizer but the institutions of governance in the developed world,” Creighton concluded.

“If Texas wins, it will have highlighted perhaps the greatest medical fraud in history, and the abject failure of medical regulators on a scale at least as large as banking and financial regulators in 2008.”

Covid-19 Injections and All-Cause Mortality

If the Texas lawsuit is successful, the implications in Australia could be monumental.

A recent study looking at deaths by all causes in 17 southern hemisphere countries, including Australia, uncovered a “definite causal link” between the rollout of Covid-19 injectables and peaks in all-cause mortality.

The Canadian team behind the study identified approximately 1 death for every 2,000 injections and concluded that “the Covid-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents”.

Data from various Australian states apparently corroborates this finding.

Most Queensland Covid-19 deaths were of people who were “fully vaccinated” when the state borders first opened in December 2021.

Likewise, Western Australians suffered exceptionally high rates of adverse events following Covid-19 injections — with a staggering 57% of them presenting at a hospital — at a time when most of the population was injected but no Covid-19 cases were recorded.

Indeed, excess deaths were already being detected in Australia in 2021 when the injection rollout was in full swing but many states still had no Covid-19 cases.

Injection Mandates and Censorship

Despite the Australian Immunisation Handbook explicitly stating that vaccines “must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”, Australian governments imposed heavy-handed injection mandates on the nation’s citizens.

Australians were deprived of their freedom to work, travel, use public and private amenities, and be with loved ones at important moments such as births, deaths and funerals, unless they received the Covid-19 products that are now the subject of the Texas lawsuit.

Rather than listening to community pushback, the Australian Government voted down two bills aimed at shielding citizens from vaccine discrimination and launched a campaign of censorship against those who raised concerns. 

Following an FOI request by Senator Alex Antic, it was revealed that the Department of Home Affairs — whose purview includes border security and counter-terrorism but not public health — wilfully violated the free speech of thousands of Australians.

As reported at the time by The Daily Declaration, 

In total, the Australian Government flagged 4,213 Covid-themed posts for suppression.

While some posts contained irrational or unverified statements, the Commonwealth also blacklisted many legitimate claims made by Australian citizens.

Among them were posts correctly stating that Covid-19 injections did not stop infection or transmission of the virus, that masks and lockdowns were ineffective, and that Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Content posted by Australian medical professionals was also censored, along with calls for peaceful protest against heavy-handed pandemic measures, and perhaps most cynically of all, testimonies of the vaccine-injured.

Australia’s Pfizer Contracts in the Spotlight

The most significant implications of the Texas lawsuit for Australia will likely be in regards to the agreements struck between the Federal Government and pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer.

When signing contracts with Covid-19 injection suppliers, the government granted companies total legal immunity if their products resulted in the maiming or killing of Australian citizens.

In the case of contracts with Pfizer, those agreements were based on the same trial data now being scrutinised in Texas.

It was on the basis of the same trial data that the Australian Government purchased vast quantities of Covid-19 injectables from various Big Pharma outfits, to the tune of almost ten doses per citizen.

To date, the Federal Government has spent at least $18 billion on Covid injectables and other treatments, approximately half of which have since been binned.

Of the first 255 million vaccine doses purchased, only 60 million were used, with more than half set to expire and be dumped, to the estimated value of $3 billion.

Approximately half of all Covid-19 injectables acquired by the Australian Government were purchased from Pfizer.

The lawsuit brought by Texas AG Ken Paxton alleges five violations of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and is seeking more than US$10 million in civil penalties against Pfizer.

It has been filed in Lubbock state district court in north-west Texas.

Anti-Semitic Incidents in Australia Surge 738% Since Last Year

From The Daily Declaration

anti-Semitic

Anti-Semitic Incidents in Australia Surge 738% Since Last Year

19 DECEMBER 2023

2.3 MINS

A shocking new report reveals a skyrocketing increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Australia following the Hamas invasion of Israel.

Death threats, graffiti, beatings and chants of “intifada” are among a record 662 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in Australia in just October and November of this year, in a shocking new report from the Executive Council of Australia Jewry.

The same period last year saw 79 such events, marking a dramatic 738% rise in anti-Semitic incidents year-on-year.

In one incident, a group of 13-year-old Jewish girls in their Jewish school uniforms were pelted with food at a mall in Bondi Junction, Sydney, before having a box thrown their way decorated in swastikas.

A Jewish cyclist sporting an Israeli flag was the victim of another attack in Melbourne, when a female attacker grabbed his flag and two men pushed the victim to the ground before kicking him in the chest and back.

In a seperate incident that took place on a train in Melbourne, an assailant shouted at a Jewish man, “If I could get a hold of a machine gun I’d gun down 10,000 of you tomorrow.” He also threatened to “blow a hole through your synagogue,” and said, “Jews aren’t people, they’re pieces of sh*t”.

The ECAJ explains in the report that their figures are provisional and are likely to rise significantly as more reports come in covering the October-November period.

‘It’s a Shame for Our Country’

Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the ECAJ, has warned that in response to the surge in anti-Semitic attacks in Australia, Jewish parents have begun telling their children to conceal their Jewish identities in public, as reported by the Daily Telegraph.

“Parents are speaking to their children about not disclosing their Jewishness in public, about hiding Jewish attire and symbols,” Mr Ryvchin said.

“The fact that in our society, in our time, these conversations are taking place, that one segment of our community feels that unsafe and that vulnerable from other Australians, it’s a shame for our country.”

In a Sky News interview, Walt Secord, Public Affairs Director or the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), said “I’ve lived in Australia now for 36 years and I have not seen anti-Semitism — the public expression of anti-Semitism — reach these levels in my entire life. It’s extraordinary.”

Mr Secord called the attacks “absolutely unAustralian”.

“We know that it’s a small group engaging in this activity but it’s absolutely unacceptable and it’s put the Jewish community on edge,” he added.

Global Surge in Anti-Semitic Incidents

A rise in anti-Semitic incidents is not just confined to Australia but has become a global phenomenon since the Hamas-led invasion of Israel on October 7 that saw 1,200 Israelis murdered, 6,000 injured and 250 taken hostage.

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League recently reported that anti-Semitic incidents in the United States have risen by 388%, the majority of which had direct links to the Israel-Hamas war.

Meanwhile in the UK, anti-Semitic incidents have surged 514% according to data from the Community Security Trust.

The Jerusalem Post reported in late October that a joint study found a global rise in anti-Semitic attacks of 500%.

Albanese Government Calls for Ceasefire

The shocking Australian report comes as the Albanese Government effectively revokes its support for Israel by voting at the United Nations for an immediate ceasefire in the war in Gaza.

It is an about-turn that has angered Israel and delighted Palestinian advocates, given Hamas’ genocidal intent for the Jewish people and desire to see the Jewish state annihilated.

The Australian Christian Lobby has launched a petition calling on the government to respond to the rise in anti-Semitism seen around the nation.

New Analysis Reveals 1 in 3 Women Suffer Post-Abortion Depression

From The Daily Declaration:

New Analysis Reveals 1 in 3 Women Suffer Post-Abortion Depression

14 DECEMBER 2023

3.3 MINS

Post-abortion depression is a real phenomenon affecting up to 1 in 3 women who abort, according to a new meta-analysis.

Women who go through with an abortion suffer no lasting mental health problems—according to conventional wisdom, at least.

However, conventional wisdom is on notice following the publication of a bombshell meta-analysis that found 34.5 percent of women experience post-abortion depression globally.

Released in October in the UK-based scientific journal BMC Psychiatry, the meta-analysis reviewed data from 15 different papers representing over 18,000 women across 11 nations.

“[T]he occurrence of post-abortion depression has been observed to be widespread globally,” concluded the Ethiopia-based research team led by Natnael Atnafu Gebeyehu and Kirubel Dagnaw Tegegne.

The team explains that their paper is “the first global meta-analysis of literature on post-abortion depression, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge.”

A Conspiracy of Silence From the Mainstream Media

An internet search of the article’s title—“Global Prevalence of Post-Abortion Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”—reveals how few mainstream media outlets have bothered to report on the distressing finding.

When addressing this topic at all, outlets such as The New York TimesNBC News, and Time reference older studies that have a far narrower scope in order to prop up the idea that abortion carries no significant mental health risks for the women who have one.

Indeed, the American Psychological Association (APA) promotes the distorted notion that it is not abortion but the denial of an abortion that has the greater mental health impact on pregnant women.

An article on the APA website quotes Debra Mollen, Ph.D., a professor of counseling psychology at Texas Woman’s University, who claims, “It’s important for folks to know that abortion does not cause mental health problems. … What’s harmful are the stigma surrounding abortion, the lack of knowledge about it, and the lack of access.”

How Wealth Affected Post-Abortion Outcomes

However, that is not what was discovered by the team of researchers behind the recent meta-analysis which compiled data on post-abortive women from nations as diverse as Australia, China, Denmark, Germany, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

“Healthcare providers should prioritise the provision of post-abortion counselling, care, and emotional support to women,” the team of six researchers warned.

“Depression is a major public health concern, with women being twice as likely as men to experience depression during their lifetime. Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide,” they added.

In their discussion, the researchers pointed to prior studies that found prevalence rates of post-abortion depression as high as 82 percent in affluent nations (though the researchers excluded North and South America due to a lack of data) and 74 percent in the developing world.

The meta-analysis demonstrated little variation in mental health outcomes from continent to continent; however, a nation’s wealth did result in different outcomes for women: Post-abortion depression rates were 43 percent in lower-middle income nations, while high income nations saw rates of 25 percent.

“This disparity may be attributed to the low social status of individuals, which can impede access to intangible resources such as security, opportunity, and education, irrespective of their objective income levels when they reside below the societal material standards,” they write.

‘Abortion Goes Against a Woman’s Very Nature’

One of the few outlets to report on the recent meta-analysis was The Washington Stand, which quoted Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council. Szoch explained:

The new meta-analysis revealing that one in three women suffer serious depression after an abortion affirms what we all innately know to be true: Abortion goes against a woman’s very nature. From the moment of her child’s conception onward, a mother’s life will always exist in relationship to her child. That child is, and always will be, a part of her. Science demonstrates this very clearly. A mother’s own DNA is altered by the child she is carrying. A mother’s unborn child literally leaves behind an imprint in her mother’s DNA changing that mother’s DNA to include a part of the child.

As highlighted by Szoch, the meta-analysis underscores the importance of better alternatives for pregnant women than abortion, along with support services for women who are suffering from post-abortion depression.

Help, Support and Hope is Available

The good news is just how many pregnancy support centers there are in the United States offering help and hope to women regardless of what they are facing.

According to The Daily Wire reporter Megan Basham, “82,000 volunteers in nearly 3,000 pro-life centers across the country annually serve roughly two million clients—more than three times the number of abortions procured.”

She adds, “In 2019, before there was any serious inkling that Roe might be overturned, pro-life centers provided $270 million worth of services and goods to at-risk women, including medical care, education, and baby items like diapers, car seats, and clothing.”

That’s not to mention the support available to women who are suffering from post-abortion depression.

As the recently released short film I’ll Speak For You affirms, “There is hope, you just have to know where to find it.”

 

Originally published at Intellectual Takeout. Image via Unsplash.