Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

Bioethics · To facilitate the debate of the implication of bioethical issues for disabled people, marginalized groups and society at large

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 873
  • Category: Biology
  • Founded: Dec 3, 1999
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Messages 12406 - 12435 of 12532   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#12406 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Thu Sep 1, 2011 11:46 pm
Subject: Presidential Panel Condemns US Syphilis Study in Guatemala
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

A year after professor Susan M. Reverby, a historian at Wellesley College in
Massachusetts, uncovered a heinous Guatemalan syphilis experiment conducted
between 1946 and 1948, on at least 5,500 under the auspices of the US Public
Health Service, a hearing was held this week about the findings of the
President's Bioethics Commission investigation.

The Commission confirms that despite knowledge that it was unethical, US
government medical scientists PURPOSELY infected  "at least 1,300 who were
exposed to the sexually transmitted diseases syphilis, gonorrhea and
chancroid" to study the effects of penicillin. At least 83 subjects died.

"They infected soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners and mental patients. More
than 5,500 people in all were part of the medical experimentation.And the
presidential panel said government scientists knew they were violating
ethical rules."

The research "included infecting prisoners by bringing them prostitutes who
were either already carrying the diseases or were purposely infected by the
researchers. Doctors also poured bacteria onto wounds they had opened with
needles on prisoners' penises, faces and arms. In some cases, infectious
material was injected into their spines, the commission reported."

None of those who were drafted volunteered or consented to the experiment.

One such victimized human being was a mental patient named Berta.

     "She was first deliberately infected with syphilis and, months later,
given penicillin. After that, Dr. John C. Cutler of the Public Health
Service, who led the experiments, described her as so unwell that she
"appeared she was going to die." Nonetheless, he inserted pus from a male
gonorrhea victim into her eyes, urethra and rectum. Four days later,
infected in both eyes and bleeding from the urethra, she died."

Anita L. Allen, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania's law school
said: "Actually cruel and inhuman conduct took place. These are very grave
human rights violations."

Those subjected to these gruesome experiments "were poor, handicapped or
imprisoned Guatemalans. They were chosen because they were "available and
powerless."

BBC reported on March 14, 2011 that  the researchers bribed care workers to
let them infect their charges and prisoners were encouraged to sleep with
infected prostitutes.

Members of the President's Commission concluded that "These researchers knew
these were unethical experiments, and they conducted them anyway," said Raju
Kucherlapati of Harvard Medical School, a commission member. "That is what
is reprehensible."

Another panelist, John Arras, a bioethicist at the University of Virginia,
stated: "I really do believe that a very rigorous judgment of moral blame
can be lodged against some of these people."

The primary investigator of a series of inhumane, government-sponsored,
syphilis experiments was John C. Cutler. He and his team of US scientists
conducted syphilis experiments on US prisoners at Terre Haute, Indiana, and
at Sing Sing, New York; on poor African-American men with late-stage
syphilis at Tuskegee, denying them treatment until 1973;  and they
deliberately infected mental patients and prisoners in Guatemala, causing 83
deaths.

  PubMed, the database for medical-scientific journal articles, lists John C.
Cutler as the author on 58 journal articles published between 1946 and 1995.
He died without ever being held accountable, in 2003.

  The study was carried out by US scientists between 1946 and 1948.
Researchers bribed care workers to let them infect their charges and
prisoners were encouraged to have sex with infected prostitutes.
The experiment is acknowledged to be "much worse than Tuskegee."

  On Oct 2010 the US Apologized to the current Guatemalan government and
President Obama oordered an investigation , on Nov 2010.

  Today, profit--not cure--reins supreme in medical research. The major
sponsors of current medical experiments--which are referred to as "clinical
trials"--are the pharmaceutical companies whose singular goal is to obtain
FDA approval for marketing their products.Most new drugs are "me too" copy
cats that offer no improvement, but all too often result in serious harm.

Arthur Caplan. director of the Bioethics Center at the University of
Pennsylvania--a center whose dependency on pharmaceutical industry funding
is legendary--is hardly someone who is objective. He tried to shield his
benefactors by claiming: "I don't think the pharmaceutical companies are
running around giving people diseases or operating in prisons or mental
asylums."

To gain an objective, evidence-based perspective, one must turn to evidence
gathered by lawyers during litigation, by independent, ethicists who are not
industry's academic shills, such as Carl Elliott: Useless Studies, Real
Harm, The New York Times, and  Making a Killing--Marketing Exercises; and
investigative reports--such as, Vanity Fair:  Deadly Medicine: Foreign
Clinical Trials, Bloomberg News: Big Pharma's Shameful Secret and  Montreal
Clinical Trial Subjects Exposed to Tuberculosis ; PBS: "Bitter Pill" Based
on Bloomberg Pharma's Shameful Secret Report, The Washington Post: Pfizer
Faulted-1996 Clinical Trials In Nigeria: Unapproved Drug Tested On
Kids...(links to articles at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/833/9/ )

The weakness of the current regulatory system is acknowledged by most
independent analysts without financial ties to industry. The trials lack
independent review and oversight, and human subjects continue to be mostly
the poor and disenfranchised. Furthermore, many experiments fail to meet
valid ethical and scientific justification.

New drugs brought to market are mostly "me too" copy-cats that do NOT
improve medical outcomes. Indeed, numerous drugs have been pulled from the
market after they killed or maimed patients.

Ironically, in July, the US government, under the Obama Administration,
issued proposed regulatory changes (92 pp.) that would (essentially)
eviscerate the very  regulatory legal protections that were adopted in the
wake of the revelations about the unethical conduct of the Tuskegee syphilis
experiment.
See: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-18792_PI.pdf

This week, the President's Bioethics Commission urged the US to join the
rest of the civilized world, by ADDING compensation requirements for the
protection of human research subjects--either directly or through mandatory
insurance.

"The panel felt strongly that it was wrong and a mistake that the United
States was an outlier in not specifying any system for compensation for
research subjects other than, 'You get a lawyer and sue.'"

Read more...including links to articles at:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/833/9/

Below,  ABC News: Syphilis Experiments Shock, But So Do Third World Drug
Trials

The New York Times: Panel Hears Grim Details of Venereal Disease Tests

The Washington Post: Compensation system urged for research victims

     Read more at:
     The Washington Post: U.S. scientists knew 1940s Guatemalan STD studies
were unethical, panel finds

     U.S. apologizes for newly revealed syphilis experiments done in
Guatemala

     BBC News:  US scientists 'knew Guatemala syphilis tests unethical'
     Al Jazeera: Panel condemns US syphilis study in Guatemala


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12407 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:18 pm
Subject: Art Caplan Challenged With Evidence of HPV Vaccine Harm
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

At the Republican Presidential Candidate debate, Michele Bachmann stepped on
a hornet's nest when she strongly criticized Rick Perry for issuing an
Executive Order mandating Texas school girls to be vaccinated with Merck's
HPV vaccine, Gardasil.

Controversy has swirled around this vaccine since Merck's aggressive
unethical marketing tactics were uncovered in 2007. These included pay offs
to public officials.
See:  Merck Lobbies States to MANDATE cervical-cancer vaccine for
schoolgirls http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/451/101/ and Merck Payola
Pays Off: Texas Governor Orders STD Vaccine for ALL girls
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/455/103/

Bachmann called Perry's use of the Executive Order an abuse of his executive
power.

Indeed, mandatory vaccination against HPV is unsupportable.
HPV is not communicable in a school setting--it is communicated only by
sexual contact. The condition Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is present in 50%
of the sexually active population.  HPV does NOT automatically develop into
cervical cancer in the overwhelming majority of the population.  HPV is
mostly benign--no treatment needed.

Furthermore, early detection of pre-cancerous cervical cells is readily
accomplished by routine PAP smears--which sexually active women in the US
routinely have. And pre-cancerous cervical condition is eminently treatable.

Therefore, cervical cancer does not pose a major danger for all
children--therefore, the risk from the vaccine itself is not justifiable.

Indeed, the Texas legislature had overruled (then) Governor Perry's
Executive Order because it was unsupportable.

Bachmann correctly noted that the HPV vaccine poses serious risks of harm:
As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 deaths reported to the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) related to Gardasil.

As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of GardasilR were
distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 of which 8%
were deemed serious. There have been 68 deaths related to the Gardasill
vaccine.

Bachmann stated that Merck  "made millions of dollars because of this
mandate;" and that Governor Perry had received thousands of dollars in
campaign contributions from Merck. She also noted that "the governor's
former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63329.html#ixzz1YPZbncRy

First among the hornets to attack Bachmann is none other than bioethicist
Art Caplan who came to Rick Perry's and Merck's defense.

Ironically, when Rick Perry entered the race for Republican Presidential
candidate, on August 15, 2011, he acknowledged in an Iowa radio call-in show
his mistake in issuing that  Gardasil Executive Order: "I readily stand up
and say I made a mistake on that. "

Art Caplan is the director of the Bioethics Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, which has been criticized for its copious pharmaceutical
industry funding. Oblivious to the reports of vaccine-related encephalitis,
cognitive disorder, and more, Caplan challenged Bachmann with a $10,000 bet
to prove her claim that the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer caused mental
retardation.

Mental retardation can be caused by encephalitis, an infection involving
inflammation of the brain as well as autoimmune inflammatory diseases
involving the central nervous system.

Read more...including the counter-challenge to Art Caplan by the
organization S.A.N.E. which cites numerous published peer-reviewed reports
of harm from the HPV vaccine. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/834/9/



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12408 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:27 pm
Subject: Demonstration Against Anthrax Vaccine Experiment on Children
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

Join the Demonstration organized by US soldiers who were harmed by the
anthrax vaccine and advocates for the protection of human subjects of
medical research to stop a proposed unethical anthrax vaccine experiment on
US children!

On Thursday, September 22, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services
will meet in Washington DC, with its National Biodefense Science Board to
receive the DSMB report about whether to approve conducting an anthrax
vaccine test in children.

Reasons for the protest:

. No evidence that children are at risk of anthrax.
. The vaccine poses serious risks of harm:
	 the FDA approved Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed label states:
. "Approximately 6% of the reported [adverse] events were listed as
serious. Serious adverse events include  those that result in death,
hospitalization, permanent disability or are life-threatening."
	 The children exposed to the anthrax vaccine risks will derive NO
BENEFIT from the experiment.

. For whose benefit is the government proposing to put children's
lives at risk of harm?

	 Read:  A 2010 report by Center for American Progress on profiteering
from anthrax vaccine
	 www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/unclesucker.pdf


The protest demonstration will take place in front of the DSMB meeting
place.

Place of demonstration: The ALMAS TEMPLE 1315 K Street NW, Washington DC
Time:  8:30 AM and 9:30 AM.

In attendance will be AHRP Board member, Meryl Nass, MD.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12409 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:47 pm
Subject: Unreasonable Conditions
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Martin and Odile,
 
Since you guys got your long-term air-conditioning on long-term floors, and the controls were installed in the backroom for the nurses/PA's, they act like little kids. Today they've had the temperature down at 22C = 71F.
 
As soon as Odile went around asking the concensus, I knew it would be primarily for the workers. I thought Odile left orders that the staff are not allowed to play around with the controls. Not only that, there are times when they come in to work in this room, and crank-up the fan in the space across from me. That was what got the guy sick, and coughing two weeks ago.
 
Although Lyse and Melanie had improved things a little around here five years ago, things over the past two years are on a reverse-course with the selfish, snobby attitude of a few favored veteran nurses and PA's.
 
Right now it's 21C outside. Is there a dire need for the air-conditioner on? Are you guys going to pull this one all winter? If they have such boiling high blood-pressure, maybe they should seek medical help, instead of killing everybody off with double-pneumonia. On the other hand, I guess that justifies them masking-up so we never see their faces anymore. It's almost like we're just diseases to the workers, and they check to see how close we are to our body-bags.
 
As I've said before, I understand if they're changing diapers. But helping me get my boots on in the morning, and off at night isn't all that contagious. I even see them change this guy's diaper across from me sometimes, and no mask. More than once, I've seen Loida and Pierre go in there and change his diaper with no mask.--But if they help get my braces off at night, they make sure they're masked-up.
 
A normal civilized person would consider that discrimination.--Not here, though.
 


--
Ironsides
 
 


#12410 From: "Alex Schadenberg" <euthanasiaprevention@...>
Date: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:37 pm
Subject: EPC Sept 28 update
euthanasiaprevention@...
Send Email Send Email
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Friends:                                                                                                                 September 28, 2011

 

Yesterday, baby Joseph Maraachli died at home with his family surrrounding him. Moe & Sana Maraachli truly made a difference when they fought to have their son, Joseph, brought home. The importance of this case was the the Maraachli family were simply asking to have a Tracheotomy done to enable Joseph to be cared for at home. The doctors and the hospital refused to do the Tracheotomy, but instead insisted on having the ventilator withdrawn, that would have resulted in Joseph dying by asphyxiation. Joseph lived a short, but an important life. An article that I wrote after he came home from St. Louis.

Link: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/04/baby-joseph-is-home-and-breathing.html

 

The BC Civil Liberties Association Carter case in British Columbia will begin on November 14. The BCCLA launched the Carter case in an attempt to strike down Canadian laws protecting people from Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. In a conversation with our legal counsel yesterday, I was informed that our application to intervene in the case is nearly completed. It is an expensive process to prepare an intervention application. The decision by the court to accept or reject our application for intervention will be made in early October. 

To donate toward the cost of intervening in the Carter case: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

 

We are asking our supporters to circulate a petition urging the Attorney General of Canada asking for the strongest possible opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Attorney General of Canada is defending the current law in the BCCLA Carter case.  The french version of the petition and an online petition will be available soon.

Link: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Petition_to_AG_Canada_English.pdf

 

Living with Dignity - New Hampshire is organizing a one-day conference on Friday, November 4 at the Crown Plaza hotel in Nashua NH. Speakers include: Diane Coleman & Stephan Drake (Not Dead Yet), Nancy Elliott, a former three term NH state representative and the founder of Living with Dignity New Hampshire, Margaret Dore (Choice is an Illusion) and Alex Schadenberg (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition).

To register for the New Hampshire Conference: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/WebBrochure.pdf

 

The Montana Coalition Against Assisted Suicide is having a one-day conference on Saturday, October 8 at the University of Montana Continuing Education Center. Speaker include: Senator Greg Hinkle, Dr. Annie Bukacek, Margaret Dore and Bradley Williams. The title for the conference is: Winning Against Assisted Suicide in Montana.

Information for registration: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/09/winning-against-assisted-suicide-in.html

 

Last Sunday I attended a BBQ in support of the Rasouli family. Our successful intervention in the Rasouli case resulted in a unanimous decision by the three judge Ontario Court of Appeal panel, who agreed with the lower court decision that the ventilator cannot be withdrawn without consent. The cost of our successful intervention was around $30,000. Currently we have raised approximately $18,000. At the BBQ the Rasouli family told us that Hassan Rasouli is still on the ventilator but his breathing is now self-regulated. He is also awake and aware. The "doctors" have appealed the Ontario Court of Appeals unanimous decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

To donate to the cost of the intervention in the Rasouli case: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

 

Recent Important Articles:

* Crown rejects Edmonton man's plea of guilty to assisted suicide.

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/09/crown-rejects-edmonton-mans-plea-of.html

* Mild stroke led to mother's forced dehydration.

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/09/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html

* Tragic death of 11-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy needs to lead to more awareness about suicide prevention.

http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/09/tragic-death-of-11-year-old-boy-needs.html

 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is experience a significant financial dilemma due to the legal interventions. Please consider donating to our work or become a member for $25 per year.

Link: http://www.euthanasiaprevention.on.ca/Donations.htm

 

Thanks you for your continued support

Alex Schadenberg

 

 



#12411 From: Ironsides <ironsides@...>
Date: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:04 am
Subject: Bounced Back From the Dead
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
The Terri Schiavo Foundation website is one fantastic website, accumulating so many miraculous cases of survival against all odds.
 
Here is a story covered by Fox News, of a sixty-four old lady in England who suffered a cardiac-arrest. She was intubated, and wasn't long before the ICU pretty much declared the Futility-Clause, which should have been struck down years ago.
 
There was a Vietnamese younger guy in this long-term unit, who I remember from the first time I was here between 1995-96. He was trached, on a ventilator and had never recovered from a coma. When I had to move back here in 2000, at one point we were in the same room. I asked a nurse one evening about his situation, and she explained that he had suffered a heart-attack, and never recovered from a coma. He was pretty young in the 1990's (thirties). She explained that somebody can sustain enough brain damage in four minutes from a heart-attack, that they will never recover.
 
This man was really well cared for throughout all the time I was aware of him, but finally died.
 
The point I'm coming to is this:
 
A nurse stated that permanent brain damage can occur after 4 minutes. From what I understand, if a patient cannot be resucitated within 20 minutes, they are declared clinically dead. Supposedly, if they were to recover after so long deprived of oxygen, they would be permanent vegetables.
 
Even though this was in yesterday's news, in a few days most people will know nothing about it, many others won't remember how long ago it was.--And ICU's around the UK, US, and Canada won't want to hear about it. To top-it-off, the DUTY-to-DIE movement will continue to campaign and lobby, the joys of dying with(out) dignity.
 
One possible strategy to change news coverage of survivor stories is, to pressure the mainstream media and the regulatory agencies in each country, such as the FCC, CRTC and I don't know what the UK's agency is, to repeat the coverage of these types of stories on a higher priority during prime-time, when most people listen to the news.--And weeks after it is out of the news, to do a follow-up. I hope somebody agrees, and that some organization will take up the challenge.
 
Also, I think it is necessary to pressure local and Federal governments in the U.S., UK, and Canada, to demand an overhaul in the general attitude in many ICU's. The attitude of, 'recover real quick, because we have your body-bag ready' stinks.--So does this doctrine, 'it costs tax-payers too much'. For one thing this "tax-payer" doctrine is a lie! Tax-payers pay absolutely zero for "goods-and-services". Tax-payers only pay interest on the Government's debts.--And that is well-documented FACT!
 
If patients are alive and ventilated, but cannot recover after their time runs out in an ICU, instead of just pulling-the-plug, there should be a long-term care facility ready and waiting. Anybody who complains that there will be too many chronic-care patients, should shut-up. Just take a good look at the sky outside. Most of the chronic medical conditions people live with, come from chemical dumps called chemtrails. Along with a mix of ever-changing chemicals, barium, aluminum-oxide and strontium are sprayed throughout the world day and night.
 
(researcher and film-maker) Michael Murphy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw&NR=1
The older pro-life doctors are not going to be around sooner or later.--And there needs to be a better attitude instilled in current medical students, in medical-colleges. Too many Duty-to-Die cult leaders exist in today's medical-colleges, and they need to be run out of the health-care industry.--That includes the APA (American Psychiatric Association), whose priority is drug profits, regardless of the graveyards filling up.
 
Alot of scientists have been getting away too much criminal activity, and it you will notice in the video here, their geo-engineering breaches all requirements for legitimate science research.
 
It is good that the woman covered in this above news item got out of there, alive!--But, how many others are not given enough time to revive? My wife was given a good two hours, and I was so happy to be with her until it was time to take her away.

 
 
Ironsides
 
 


#12412 From: "amit" <dramit_in@...>
Date: Sun Jul 3, 2011 4:07 pm
Subject: JNRP in Pubmed
dramit_in
Send Email Send Email
 

Dear Sir,

We are pleased to inform that the journal is now included in PubMed.

One can search the articles published in one issue which is now in PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=Journal+of+Neurosciences+in+Rural+Practice). These articles will be linked to the journal's website in next 3-4 days. The future articles will be available in PubMed about 4-8 weeks after publication.

We look forward for your continuing support.

 

Thanking you

With personal regards

Dr Amit Agrawal
www.ruralneuropractice.com
www.journalonweb.com/jnrp


#12413 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:19 pm
Subject: Childhood Under Siege: How Big Business Targets Children
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI
An Op Ed in The New York Times by Joel Bakan, a law professor at the
University of British Columbia, is the author of "Childhood Under Siege: How
Big Business Targets Children," provides insight into the conflict between
laws enacted to protect children's best interest and the newly emerging laws
that protect corporate best interests.

This conflict of interest has resulted in devastating consequences:
children's best interest, their health and welfare have been sacrificed by
for corporate profits.

Bakan cites childhood obesity resulting from irresponsible advertising by
the purveyors of junk food. And  the proliferation of toxic chemicals in
children's environment that have undermined their health. And he cites
under-regulated pharmaceutical industry practices, noting that corporate
deception led to widespread prescribing of psychotropic drugs for children:

      "we medicate increasing numbers of children with potentially harmful
psychotropic drugs, a trend fueled in part by questionable and
under-regulated pharmaceutical industry practices.

      In the early 2000s, for example, drug companies withheld data
suggesting that such drugs were more dangerous and less effective for
children and teenagers than parents had been led to believe.

      The law now requires "black box" warnings on those drugs' labels, but
regulators have done little more to protect children from sometimes unneeded
and dangerous drug treatments."

While the statement is true, readers are not informed about the actual scope
and magnitude of the deceptive practices by pharmaceutical companies and
their professional healthcare "partners" in government and academia that are
undermining  children's health and welfare.

Read Corrupt Practices section on the AHRP website. For example,
Confidential Expert Witness Report Documents Psychiatrists' Corrupt
Practices at: http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/822/70/

Read more... http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/832/9/


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974



_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12414 From: "foodethics_rockinstitute" <rockfoodethics@...>
Date: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:16 pm
Subject: Food Ethics Lecture SeriesLive Webcast: August 29, 2011 March 19, 2012
foodethics_r...
Send Email Send Email
 

The Rock Ethics Institute at Penn Statein collaboration with the Bioethics Program and several other units at University Parkinvites you to join us for the Food Ethics Lectures Series 2011-12.

The series explores some of the most compelling issues in food ethics todayfrom the agrarian tradition to industrial farming, from the ethics of nutrigenomics to food safety and food security, from fish in pain to the fish on your plate.  This course of eight distinct but interrelated lectures islike any good mealdesigned to leave the audience both satisfied and wanting more.  The lectures can be viewed live on the web, and questions can be submitted in real time to the speakers.  For a list of all the lectures, please go to:  http://rockethics.psu.edu/bioethics/events/food1112.shtml

The first lecture is by Paul B. Thompson W. K. Kellogg Professor of Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State University, and will be webcast live on Monday, August 29 at 3 4:30pm EST:  "What Makes Food Good? The Terrain of Food Ethics and the Agrarian Tradition."  To view the lecture live, go to http://live.libraries.psu.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=e4b17c21e9f14437b9b1cbf8de55f9fe1d       

No advance registration is required.

Viewers are also encouraged to follow and engage in the conversation about food ethics on the Rock Ethics Institute's Bioethics Blog, http://rockblogs.psu.edu/bioethics/, and on the Public Philosophy Network: http://publicphilosophynetwork.ning.com/group/foodethics.

If you would like to receive email reminders about our forthcoming lectures in the Food Ethics Lecture Series, please send an email to rockfoodethics@... . 

For more information about the Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State, please go to http://rockethics.psu.edu/ .  To learn more about Penn State's Bioethics Program, and its new interdisciplinary dual-title Ph.D. in bioethics, the only program of its kind, please go to http://bioethics.psu.edu

 


#12415 From: brorie1218 <brorie1218@...>
Date: Thu Sep 1, 2011 4:45 am
Subject: Re:Need help stopping abuse of disabled students
brorie1218
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi All,
The following paragraph was in a memo written by the principal of the special education center where I worked (I am a speech therapist specializing in AAC). She wrote it in response to receiving a copy of a memo written by two autism specialists to their supervisor after they made an unannounced visit to the school.  The specialists observed “questionable behaviors” toward the students by staff members. They did not contact child abuse authorities as required by law.
“The reason this letter is being made public is to illustrate just how one can be perceived by someone else when handling students. We never thought that staff’s action was ‘malicious intent” nor “abusive in nature” however we quickly realized how someone from the “outside” could. We have to always be cognizant of how we manage the students, “a push from behind,” “a rough tug on the clothes,” “a grabbing of the neck,” “ a shove from the side or behind,” even “hey get out of here” in a loud tone of voice may be perceived as inappropriate and by some maybe abusive. Conclusions drawn are strictly in “the eye of the beholder,” and ones explanation for their behavior may or may not be taken into strong consideration. “
By the time that memo was written, I had already made numerous complaints about the situation at the school to all the appropriate agencies.  I sent a copy of that memo to district administrators, including the superintendent. They have been aware of the situation at the school for years, but refused to do anything about it. I am being retaliated against for reporting abuse and it has gone on for about 3 years now. At the end of the school year in June, 2010 I was re-assigned to a different school and the other teacher who reported abuse was fired (he did not have tenure). Even though everything I claimed was validated through an investigation by the California State Department of Education, the retaliation continues and my supervisors refused to reassign me to the school.
I need your help.
 
 First, I have contacted every applicable legal, non-profit, volunteer and news organization possible and have not been able to generate much interest. So, parents and I created two online petitions.  The first is a petition to have me returned to the school and rehire the other teacher. The second petition is to mandate that teachers get trained in recognizing and responding to the abuse of disabled students. Training would include recognizing and confronting the same types of abuse perpetrated against non-disabled people as well as abuse unique to people with disabilities.  Training would also involve recognizing and confronting negative attitudes, recognizing policies and practices driven by such attitudes and understanding how negative attitudes and the resulting policies and practices are abusive and/or increase a student's risk of abuse. The links to the petitions are at the end of the email.
 
The second thing I need help with is my situation with my doctorate in communication disorders. My university refuses to grant me an extension to finish it, although I explained how conditions my work situation affected my ability to finish. My university requires doctoral students to select a problem at their work setting as the topic for their dissertation. I selected abuse and how professional attitudes interact with its occurrence. I have explained that students died, that I helped to bring an investigation to the school and so on, but they don’t seem to care. I don’t know if I can afford an attorney. I would appreciate any suggestions.
 
Here are the links to the petitions. Thank you for signing.
 
 
 
 
 

#12416 From: Melania Moscoso <mmoscosoes@...>
Date: Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:23 pm
Subject: New Issue of DILEMATA , International Journal of Applied Ethics
mmoscosoes
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello,
Thought this could be of your interest, since the issue is entirely devoted to Stem cell law and Social model of Disability

DILEMATA 7 (2011), International Journal of Applied Ethics. Available in
open access!

Just published on the web
http://www.dilemata.net/revista/index.php/dilemata/issue/view/8/showToc
the full content of this issue of DILEMATA. You can find there a
multiple-sided discussion about stem cell use in biomedical research, including three 
articles by Luciano Vellón and Angel García about Stem Cell  Biobanks for research purposes;another one by Mahalatchimy et all and 
regulation of  human cells in the United Kingdom and France. Concluding this section you can find and interesting report on the Regulatory framework on Human Embryonic Stem Cell on the EU. The article section is entirely dedicated to discuss, from different points of view, the social model of disability with two interesting articles: Feminist critique of Disability:the monster as a figure of exclusion and disability, which explores the intimations of feminism and disability and the shadow figure of the monster, and the second one, written by yours faithfully Disability as functional diversity: the limits of the ethnocultural paradigm as a social justice model. Dilemata is an Open Access journal sponsored by the Spanish Research Council (CSIC)

You are invited to consult the Journal, to send your comments (we
provide a
space for that), and to submit your proposals.
We look forward to
DILEMATA
being yours, too!


Aviso para castellanohablantes:

La revista Dilemata. Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas acaba de publicar su séptimo número. Dilemata es una publicación del Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. En esta edición Dilemata  incluye dos interesantes artículos relacionados con la discapacidad. El primero de ellos es”Crítica feminista de la discapacidad: el monstruo como figura de la vulnerabilidad y exclusión” de la profesora Isabel Balza de la Universidad de Jaén en el cual se discuten las intimaciones del feminismo y del modelo social de la discapacidad, contraponiendo la categoría de monstruo como horizonte de abyección de ambos modelos. El segundo, escrito por servidora, la discapacidad como diversidad funcional: los límites del paradigma cultural como modelo de justicia social explora las contribuciones y también las dificultades del constructivismo en el modelo social de la discapacidad. Dilemata es una publicación de acceso abierto que puede ser consultada en el siguiente acceso:
http://www.dilemata.net/revista/index.php/Dilemata
 
 
Melania Moscoso, Ph.D.
Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales - Consejo Superior de
   Investigaciones Científicas. Spanish Research Council.
   C/Albasanz, 26-28. Madrid 28037 (España)
   Tlf: 0034916022499
   E-mail: melania.moscoso@...



#12417 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:47 pm
Subject: Fwd: [ALEX SCHADENBERG] New comment on EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION GRANTED INTERVENOR....
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Alex,
 
Before you guys go to trial, I just want to share a little more on points included in your post:
 
"...and promoting compassionate healthcare respectful of the lives, dignity and autonomy of vulnerable people." "
 
Home-care workers and nurse-assisstants (called PA's here) perform the same services. Overall, this hospital accomodates much of what the patients and their families want, regarding doctors' care. The long-term unit, and the acute-care floor who deal with chronic-care, see the same "patients" regularly. It is the department of nurses, where the strain in relations takes place.--And this holds true from personal experience at my apartment, between 1996-2000. Before that I always had people to live with.
 
Twice I was robbed by home-care workers, and only discovered it when I had to get groceries and pay my rent. I only needed help to get my legs on and off morning and night, dishes and trash taken care of, and my home-care workers had it pretty easy.
 
In an institutional-environment, nurses and PA's are a mix of good and bad. Due to being an insider, I mind my own business unless a patient or their family member talk complaints over with me. I automatically tell them their options, but if things are continuous, and I'm aware of it, I break all the rules they made here and have it out with the patient's offenders, and the head-nurses.
 
If I didn't have this constant retro-active threat of eviction, when problems get bad enough around here, I would probably try to see all the bi-lingual patients, to survey any complaints they have. Because I don't get involved with most recreation activities (too busy working with on-line activists and studying), I assume most of the patients are happy. The only trached patient I know who has been abused since he moved in a few years ago, has ALS.
 
He has written with extreme difficulty and pain, several letters to different influential people he knows. One of the worst situations all trached patients have to deal with, is having to be suctioned by a Respiratory-Technician or nurse, who have an attitude problem. I won't repeat what happened to me in 2008, when they could not intubate me for surgery, and inserted a trache (my second trache). One night-shift nurse took advantage of being the only person available, to suction during a 2-hour break of other ICU nurses and RT. I think it was retaliation for her friend, who lost his court-case against being fired in 2005, for taking a swing at me one night-shift.
 
This other patient's mother and him have demanded that 2 nurses are not allowed to treat him anymore, because of the continued physical and mental abuse.--However, schedules have always been co-ordinated to maintain, that the abusive nurses are the only nurses available, whenever it is scheduled that way.
 
These attitudes never existed before so much continuous attention is given to legalizing euthanasia/assissted-suicide.
 
 

 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ironsides <noreply-comment@...>
Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Subject: [ALEX SCHADENBERG] New comment on EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION GRANTED INTERVENOR....
To: ironsidesx@...


Ironsides has left a new comment on the post "EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION GRANTED INTERVENOR...":

Alex, I congratulate you guys for intervening in the case.

The Supreme-Court decision in the Sue-Rodriguez case does show that, contrary to critics, Canadian Laws are not outdated.

It results in people being brought to justice, where legal authorities are compliant with the Laws.

I really hope that EPC can win this case, because there also needs to be a renewed adherence to Canadian Laws by the provinces, too.

Post a comment.

Unsubscribe to comments on this post.

Posted by Ironsides to ALEX SCHADENBERG at October 20, 2011 4:18 PM



--
Ironsides
email: ironsides@...
mobile: 514-585-6265
http://ironsidesworldheadquarters.blogspot.com/
http://ironsidesx.wordpress.com/

 


#12418 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 5:48 pm
Subject: Coinciding Media-Scedules, Court-Decision of Murderer and Dr. OZ on Euthanasia
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/11/04/guy-turcotte.html?cmp=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/25/turcotte-appeal-support.html
http://www.cbc.ca/radionoonmontreal/2011/07/05/dramatic-turcotte-decision-surprises-courtroom/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/07/05/quebec-turcotte-verdict.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/03/f-not-criminally-responsible.html

The Judge wanted people who would respond emotionally, to leave the courtroom before the verdict. Reporters were ordered to not leave, to report the verdict.

I consider this murder case, is, or will be exploited by the Duty-to-Die movement. People might debunk it as just "another conspiracy-theory", since the victims were not disabled, but there are dots to connect, instead of just pawning-off the dots as "mere coincidences".--This is a convenient time for this story to be front-burner material, coinciding with an episode of Dr. OZ on the Right to Die.

Most of the time I don't even pay much attention to local news, because I focus more on global and national issues. That said, when this story hit me between the eyes early this morning, when I was organizing what to check first, this comes at the same time I finished my opinion-piece concerning today's Dr. OZ.

Television-network anchors do not put such fitting-pieces of a puzzle together by coincidence. When those bosses co-ordinate their time-and-space for every piece of material, whether it be written or multi-media, they know exactly what they are doing. So, the news-media and television program-scedule bosses are pulling-off a well-intended psy-op (psychological operation) on the public, throughout Quebec. There might be other Canadian and American cities, where this Dr. OZ show on "The Right to Die", coincides with local trials of killers being specially-treated as not responsible for their murders.

When dangerous psychopaths commit murders, the social-engineers have manipulated Canadian laws to accomodate it. All the lawyers do is get their clients to plead not guilty, on the grounds of insanity.--Yet, it's people who really do have mental-disorders, disabilities who the Duty-to-Die cult go after whenever it suits them.--After their KILL-BILLS are passed, chalked full of "safeguards against the slippery-slope of euthanasia".

Ha!--This guy is a cardiologist (I think), and they use a law to excuse real mentally-ill cases, to excuse him. There is no doubt in my mind that he also is part of the new doctor-of-death culture. I notice in one article, that the Criminal-code was changed in 1992, which was during the time of Sue Rodriguez.--How good the shoe fits together, that back then they were greasing their culture of death with legal manipulation, so blood-thirsty killers could be treated with "dignity". LOL!

It's time to clean-out the infiltrators of the government of the reverse-definition psy-ops!

 

--

Ironsides
 
 


#12419 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:29 pm
Subject: Infamous Endorsement of Anthrax Vaccine for Children
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI
On Friday, October 28, the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), a
government-appointed panel of "experts" voted its approval (12 to 1) for the
government to proceed with an unconscionable medical experiment that would
expose healthy US children to the risks of the anthrax vaccine, a vaccine which
offers absolutely no direct benefit, but whose risks include serious adverse
reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, neurological disorders, disability
and death.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection wrote a letter to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (in June, 2011) outlining our concerns about this
radical experiment, which clearly deviates from the precautionary principle in
medicine and federal research ethics regulations. See:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/823/9/

Under US regulations (45 CFR 46, Subpart D) children may not be exposed to risk
if a medical experiment does not offer them a direct benefit.

Don't be misled by government propaganda about the risk of an anthrax attack-- a
myth perpetuated by the media:

     •    Anthrax is NOT CONTAGIOUS--it cannot be spread from person to person.

     •    Anthrax has never posed a threat to the general public; the only
people at risk are research laboratory staff who handle anthrax bacteria.

     •    The Center for Disease Control, until recently, recommended
vaccination "only for those at high risk, such as workers in research
laboratories that handle anthrax bacteria routinely."

	 • The FDA label (2008) states: "the vaccine is licensed for use only in
adults between the ages of 18 and 65, who are at high risk for exposure to
anthrax bacteria."

The NBSB recommendation was made despite its own report acknowledging that:

“Currently, U.S. children are not at immediate risk from anthrax and would not
benefit directly from pre-event AVA [anthrax vaccine] administration.”

And “There is no known benefit to vaccinating children in the absence of an
imminent threat from exposure to B. anthracis other than potential future
benefit.”

Their justification is without substance, relying on a hypothetical, highly
exaggerated risk from an unlikely event:

"Preparation for a national and potentially global threat from the use of B.
anthracis spores by terrorists is a major priority for U.S. national
security.”

What evidence exists of any "national and potentially global threat from
anthrax"?

One is reminded of the purported "weapons of mass destruction" which never
materialized, but served as our government's excuse for going to war against
Iraq.

Since 2004, the Dept. of Health and Human Services, which convened the NBSB
panel, has overseen Project BioShield to develop and stockpile vaccines and
treatments as medical countermeasures to hypothetical bioterrorist attacks. One
goal was to develop a replacement for the controversial, 50 year old anthrax
vaccine developed by the US Army, which admittedly has severe side effects.

The cover story of Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "Ten Years After the
Anthrax Attacks, We Are Still Not Ready," by Wil Hylton exposes the lack of
leadership, confusion, and even mutual hostility among US government officials
charged with developing biodefense countermeasures:

  "Last year, two separate review boards evaluated the state of the country's
biodefense program, and each report came back scathing." They described
"ballooning" government bureaucracy, "lack of coherence," "lack of
prioritization," "lack of synchronization"--and colossal waste.

  "Ten years after the anthrax attacks, and with more than $16 billion committed
to countermeasure development, there is still broad disagreement among officials
over whether the stockpile should include other vaccines."

  "[The] challenge is not made easier by the personal hostility that has emerged
among many current program heads — some of whom have close ties to the
competing companies they oversee. In the course of several months of reporting,
I heard senior officials from each of the major countermeasure agencies question
the motives and professional credentials of the others, sometimes in a manner
involving spittle. At times it seemed that the most virulent pathogen in
biodefense was mutual hostility, and everybody had it."

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/magazine/how-ready-are-we-for-bioterrorism.htm\
l

Of particular concern is the motive and professional credentials of the DHHS
Assistant Secretary, Nicole Lurie, who proposed the anthrax vaccine trial in
children. She did so, despite knowing that the vaccine is mired in controversy,
despite knowing the health problems associated with it, despite the government's
sweetheart deal with its sole manufacturer, Emergent BioSolutions, all common
knowledge within the biodefense community.

The panel's 12 to 1 recommendation favoring DHHS’ request to proceed with the
pediatric anthrax vaccine trial--with the proviso that another "appropriate"
panel be convened to determine the ethical viability [a requirement under 45 CFR
46.407]--raises serious questions about the integrity of government-convened
committees who rubber stamp dubious government initiatives and policies.

Knowledgeable critics believe this vote demonstrates the insidious influence
federal biodefense funding exerts on academics and physicians who can be counted
on to sanction even the most egregious, ill-conceived government initiative and
lend credence to hypothetical, unsubstantiated risks.

FDA's latest label warnings (2008) states:
     "Since the risk of anthrax infection in the general population is low,
routine immunization is not recommended."
     "Safety and effectiveness of BioThrax have not been established in pregnant
women or nursing mothers, or in pediatric or geriatric populations"

Notwithstanding FDA's licensure for limited usage indications of the
vaccine--and its explicit statement that the vaccine had NOT been tested in
geriatric populations--Daniel Fagbuyi, who chaired the NBSB Anthrax Vaccine
Working Group, and is the medical director of disaster preparedness and
emergency management at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C.,
falsely implied that the vaccine had been tested and approved for elderly
populations:
     "We can take care of Grandma and Grandpa, Uncle and Auntie. But right now,
we have nothing for the children.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-advisers-endorse-t\
esting-anthrax-vaccine-in-children/2011/10/27/gIQA95i7PM_print.html

The single panelist who voted against the recommendation was Patricia Quinlisk,
M.D., M.P.H., State Epidemiologist and Medical Director of the Iowa Department
of Public Health, who chaired the NBSB panel.  The Alliance for Human Research
Protection applauds Dr. Quinlisk's courageous moral stand.

An incisive article discussing the anthrax vaccine and the NBSB’s odious
recommendation was published by Forbes, titled "The Anthrax Vaccine Boondoggle,"
by Steve Salzberg , Professor of Medicine and Biostatistics in the Institute of
Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins University's School of Medicine.

See: http://blogs.forbes.com/stevensalzberg/

  Kudos to The Washington Post for its coverage of two of the three public
hearings of the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB), which informed the
public about the Obama Administration's proposal to test the safety and efficacy
of the highly controversial anthrax vaccine on healthy US children.

See:  Federal Advisers Endorse Testing Anthrax Vaccine in Children, by Rob Stein
, published October 28, 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-advisers-endorse-t\
esting-anthrax-vaccine-in-children/2011/10/27/gIQA95i7PM_print.html

See also: Possible Study of Anthrax Vaccine’s Effectiveness in Children Stirs
Debate , by Rob Stein, published October 24 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/possible-study-of-anthrax-\
vaccines-effectiveness-in-children-stirs-debate/2011/10/13/gIQAFWLdDM_print.html

See also: Public Citizen letter to DHHS Secretary , Kathleen Sebelius (Nov. 1,
2011) urging her to reject the National Biodefense Science Board's
recommendation to conduct pre-event clinical trials of the anthrax vaccine in
children:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/%E2%80%A8http://www.citizen.org/documents/letter-opposin\
g-anthrax-vaccine-trials-involving-children-110111.pdf

See, NBSB panel roster and Ex-Officio government agency officials--All but
one--who lent their support for HHS proposed unethical experiment on vulnerable,
children who are legally precluded from refusing to consent:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/836/9/

See, public reactions at:

Read more... http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/835/9/


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974




_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12420 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:46 pm
Subject: Reactions to Dr. OZ Program on The Right to Die
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 

Note: For whatever reason, the Dr. OZ show on The Right to Die was not aired tonight. When I checked the local TV-schedule for Montreal, I was sure that it said for CFCF: 2011/11/04. Maybe I mistook which show, but I saw the show on the website the other night. Here is how I feel about it.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/do-you-have-right-die-pt-1

Notes on the Dr. OZ Show, The Right to Die:

The first thing which caught my attention is, that the woman stresses her athletic image, as did Sue Rodriguez. She lived a conventional undisabled life, and got married and has grown children.--And all these things and abilities in her life should be a course of events for which she thankful, although having to adjust to her disability.

Unlike many others who are disabled in a split-second from accident or injury, she has had time to adjust to her disabling condition. The people who impressed me the most, are her son, and Dr. Keith.

George and Betty Coumbiases' rants on the Suicide Tourists documentary a few years ago, were loud and clear in this woman's complaints, how embarrassing it is that she needs help to do nearly everything now.--And this all leads back to the "Right (?) to Die movement", and their measurement for assisted or forced death, called "quality of life".

Before I go any further, I'm going to say that from everything I have read in mainstream media-coverage of allegedly "right-to-die" cases over the years, the most offensive attribute I sense in the on-stage crusaders, is their life-long contempt for Disabled People, disabled from birth.

I do understand how embarrassing it is, in a state of not being able to do anything for yourself, including clean yourself when you use the toilet, commode or need to wear diapers.--I've been there in all three circumstances, and will be again before I do die. Also, I have witnessed patients being yelled-at by well-paid "care-givers", and accused of just making more work, if they dropped a urine-bottle on the floor, or had diarrhea.

What makes me sick to my gut, however, is that Disabled People don't get center-stage like the Johnny-and-Suzie-come-lately to the Disability Community. Christopher Reeve never could become one of us. Many of these on-stage complainers just have to be better, superior to those of us who were born disabled.

Everything they think about us pertains to inferior genes, but I've got a surprise for them.--My birth-defect was not genetic, and I think alot of others are not genetic disabilities, either. Christopher Reeve wanted to be Superman again, and a horse-rider again. He had to have a better quality of life, whatever that is.--And most of these belly-aching right-to-die cases are the same.

Doctor Keith went to correct Montel Williams about Oregon, but it did not seem to be too well received.--Dr. OZ changed course. Dr. Keith emphasized what always has to be repeated, that everyone has the right legally, to refuse medical treatments and nutrients. If they do, then they cannot say they don't have the right to die.--And there is no justification to legalize the Death cult.

For those who opt for terminating medical treatments and nutrients, their death is in their control. When they refuse medical treatments and nutrients, they receive palliative-care so they do not have to suffer. My wife received palliative-care at the end.--And her pain in her kidneys and respiratory difficulty were properly managed.

Everybody's biggest fear, is an unwanted end-of-life experience. That is what the Duty-to-Die movement really is all about. They love scare-marketing death, and legalizing their "services" has resulted in more gruesome end-of-life experiences than they want their new victims to know of.

When Dr OZ's guest got to the part, "people in my condition", I was thinking that most people just want a peace of mind and heart, that when their deaths do come, they won't suffer.

The mainstream-media does a good job of making celebrities of these people, who come out of nowhere, and are the stage-performers for the Duty-to-Die leadership. They do not speak or represent those of us, disabled from birth, some who live with serious pain and/or inability to do any more for themselves than she can.--And these media-hosted terminally-ill guests are just as corrupt as the Jerry Lewis farce.

Two doctors who should be consulted, in respect to the increasing number of disabling diseases are Dr. Blaylock, and Dr. Mercola. Instead of using shows to scare audiences, and be financially rewarded for psychologically pressuring the population to accept the gospel of euthanasia, the media should educate audiences to learn what Monsanto, and Global-Pharma have done to their victims. These talk-show hosts would accomplish alot more for those guests, by using their shows to force the bio-chemical manufacturers to scale-down the cause of the medical problems.

http://vimeo.com/22770128
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4mrBEaRMKU

Instead, the mainstream-media, the FDA, CDC and WHO all enjoy their own lavish life-styles by raking-in huge $$$$$$$$$ to shut-up, and help promote the Duty-to-Die cult increased profits.


--

Ironsides
 
 


#12421 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Sun Nov 6, 2011 5:44 pm
Subject: Follow-Up RE: Infamous Edorsement of Anthrax Vaccine in Children
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

Following dissemination of our Infomail, Infamous Endorsement of Anthrax
Vaccine for Children, AHRP was asked by one recipient, what evidence existed
to show that the anthrax vaccine has caused disability and death.

This is an important, legitimate question that deserves clarification and
citation to evidence which we want to share with all our Infomail readers.

Military studies of the anthrax vaccine  have provided very little
information about adverse effects.  However, as Meryl Nass, MD, a recognized
expert on anthrax and biological weapons, points out, a June, 2007 report by
the General Accounting Office  [GAO-07-787R ]  states (on page 4, last
paragraph):

      "Officials from the VHC Network [Vaccine Healthcare Centers] and CDC
[Center for Disease Control] estimate that between 1 and 2 percent of
immunized individuals may experience severe adverse events, which could
result in disability or death. Some of these events may occur coincidentally
following immunization, while others may truly be caused by immunization."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07787r.pdf

Dr. Nass also refers to a slide from a Vaccine Healthcare Center
presentation, which states that the anthrax vaccine poses a risk of  "Severe
AE [Adverse Events]....of 1-2%"

She notes, "There are no good studies of incidence or prevalence of severe
adverse events to point to, but this is what the CDC and military Vaccine
Healthcare Centers acknowledged from their own experience with vaccine
reactions."

The 2002-2007 CDC-directed, five center anthrax vaccine clinical trial
enrolled 1564 subjects initially, followed them over 43 months, and reported
229 serious adverse events to VAERS.

A preliminary 2008 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA ) provided  the total Adverse effect number, as 229, but without a
breakdown by the type of adverse event:
     "During the 7 months of participation summarized here, there were 51
SAEs reported among 47 subjects of the 1005, including 3 deaths. Using World
Health Organization causality assessment criteria, the data and safety
monitoring board concluded after a blinded review that none of these 51 SAEs
was related or possibly related to the study agent. Since enrollment began,
there have been 229 SAEs in the entire 1563 participant cohort involving 186
participants, with 7 deaths." [emphasis added]
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/13/1532.full

Four years have passed since CDC completed this major trial, yet no final
report has ever been published.


Disclosure: Dr. Nass is a board member of The Aliiance for Human Research
Protection



Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12422 From: "veracare" <veracare@...>
Date: Wed Nov 9, 2011 5:25 pm
Subject: In Landmark Case, Judge Rules Prozac Was To Blame for Murder
veracare@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
www.ahrp.org

FYI

A Canadian judge ruled that Prozac was the cause that led a teenage high
school student-- with no prior history of violence--to inexplicably murder
his friend by stabbing him with a single wound to the chest.

Judge Robert Heinrichs sentenced the boy a three-year sentence, less time
already served--which means he will serve 10 months remaining in jail.
Additionally he is required to be under community supervision for four
years.

The judge based his determination largely on the compelling expert testimony
by US psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, MD who submitted scientific evidence
showing the risk of drug-induced violence posed by antidepressants such as
Prozac.

According to court documents,  "The boy had been taking Prozac for three
months, during which time his behavior deteriorated. He became impulsive and
unpredictable, and suicidal. He also began to talk at times as if
fantasizing about violence. He seemed to become a different person to his
distraught parents."

The judge was also persuaded by the fact that when Prozac was withdrawn from
the boy, his behavior returned to normal.
" His basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of
violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence
would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac."

Dr. Breggin testified that his primary care physician and his parents
alerted the prescribing psychiatric clinic to the boy's deteriorating
condition, but the clinic continued the Prozac and then doubled it.
Seventeen days after the increase in dosage, the teen committed the
violence." Dr. Breggin further testified that "the teen's use of Prozac
likely meant he wasn't in full control of his actions."

The court heard how the boy changed from a loving, happy-go-lucky kid to a
dark, depressed drug abuser. In sentencing the boy Judge Heinrichs noted
that the boy "began to act out violently and even tried to harm himself on
several occasions....it's clear the boy's parents did the right thing in
taking their concerns to his various doctors, but they were largely
ignored."

At sentencing, last Friday, Judge Heinrichs said: "(Prozac) clearly affected
his behaviour in an alarming way. He was simply not the same person."

This is the first criminal case in North America where a judge has
specifically found that an antidepressant was the cause of a murder.

Dr. Breggin noted that: "This is a landmark legal confirmation of the
scientific fact that the newer antidepressants like Prozac, including the
SSRI and SNRI antidepressants, can cause violence and even murder."

Read Winnipeg Free Press:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/10-more-months-for-teen-who-cited-pro
zac-in-killing-133288373.html

  more: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8941528.htm

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@...
212-595-8974


_______________________________________________
Infomail1 mailing list
to unsubscribe send a message to Infomail1-leave@...

#12423 From: "Alex Schadenberg" <euthanasiaprevention@...>
Date: Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:30 pm
Subject: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition media release
euthanasiaprevention@...
Send Email Send Email
 
The latest media release from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and EPC-BC
 
 
Alex Schadenberg
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

#12424 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll. Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada? VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides


#12425 From: "Alex Schadenberg" <euthanasiaprevention@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
euthanasiaprevention@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Hey Ironsides:
 
I think we should do this in a civilized and humane way. We should select them among all Canadians and put them in a camp to access them. We could hire doctors who are interested in making sure the rules are followed and a few other doctors who are interested in scientific research.
 
We could then do the accessments and everyday determine which ones should die and which ones should live.
 
The ones who are chosen for death can then be assessed by the scientific doctors and when their assessments are done they would then be humanely put into a room where they would listen to soft music and then gased.
 
It would be quick, clean, it would ensure that all the record keeping is properly done, it would maintain a good for society and everyone would know that it would be properly regulated.
 
Alex
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ironsides
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
 
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
 
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
 
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
 
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
 
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
 
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
 
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
 
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
 
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
 
 
 
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides
 
 


#12426 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:32 pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: CBC online poll
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
Below is a copy of my reply to the email I received this morning:
My twin brother is a CP-RAILWAY radio-telecommunications technician. During the 1970's he learned about the New-World Order conspiracy, and the now well-known name for the increasing number of organizations and institutions, now part of the Illuminati.
While he and his friends then had plans to prevent the take-over of Canada, like everybody else now, he sees the light.
The "media" would never fail to sound-the-alarm; government agencies would never do anything but what is in the best interests of children, after children are removed from their parents and murdered in state-care; and hospital scare-givers are heroic people, who don't murder patients.--Because I saw the latest heroic episode of "Trauma in the ER".

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ironsides <ironsides@...>
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: FW: CBC online poll
To: Bill Greig <billgreig@...>


You and a lady down the hall, who always complains about how they treat her son, should get together.--And live in a bubble! I have given her hundreds of hours of legal advice, and asked her to consider supporting the only lawyers this country has to constantly take care of the legal nonstop war in legislature and the courts.--And both of you seem to think the expenses are free of charge.
As of yesterday, I made plans for the day after the Criminal-Code is overthrown. When Harper is overthrown, there are no candidates who oppose euthanasia.--So, it's obvious you and Deanna would never dare face embarrassment by thinking differently, than your friends, your pastor and your church.
That's alright!--Dan Wheldon just "died from unsurvivable injuries" a few weeks ago. He was alive before he got to hospital, but yeah, his fucking injuries were "unsurvivable". Last Sunday, the Alberta kid who got a puck to the neck was alive before he arrived at hospital.--But at the hospital, he died from the puck to the neck.--Yeah, right!
I just finished 7 months of NATO's 43 nations' targetting every tribal village and city neghborhood, who voted to retain the former Libyan government, and to retain Muammar Gadhaffi until after Libya could recover from the Holocaust.--But, Libya's tribal democracy isn't fair to FOREIGN BANK-MOBS and their other Global-Corporations. Arabs don't have Rothschilds' permission to demand payment for oil in gold-dinars.--So, NATO had to bomb all the civillian voters, who voted against the NEW-WORLD ORDER, so Gadhaffi's Armed-Forces would not do it. Over a week ago the your unquestionable Christian western news-media reported how pleased that the NATO Chief is, and that bombing ended.
Yes, Bill, the news-media really enlightens us, don't they!--While I get the current videos and photos coming in, from insiders around the country, and more from European contacts who have direct contact with other insiders around the country, if such things really were happening, CNN, CBC, NEWS-WORLD and CTV would tell us, right Bill? I shouldn't trust any news-source, but FCC/CRTC NEWS-CORPORATIONS, right Bill?
Yeah, I should just hold-on to all these glowing pollsters' stats, and praise-the-Lord, right?--The polls which roller-coaster from one hour to the next! You just go on ahead and keep me posted on "the good news", Bill.--Yupee! It's obvious that your pastor has been visited, and he now seeeeeeeeeees the glorious light. That's alright.--I won't ever mention anything in the future.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Bill Greig <billgreig@...> wrote:

I trust that you already voted on this opinion poll. 75% of Canadians saying no to assisted suicide on the CBC website. If you find a link to any other such opinion polls, feel free to forward me the link so I can be heard.

Bill

From: Alex Schadenberg [mailto:euthanasiaprevention@...]
Sent: November-14-11 2:11 PM
To: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Subject: CBC online poll

The poll question is: Should Canadians have the legal right to assisted suicide?

You will find the poll by scrolling down.

This is the latest media release from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition




--
Ironsides

#12427 From: Steve Payette <stevepayette@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:07 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
stevepayette@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  

Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve





On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
 
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
 
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
 
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
 
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
 
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
 
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
 
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
 
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
 
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
 
 
 
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides
 
 




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5
Tel: 450.455.5318





#12428 From: "Maria Barile" <mariab@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
italien1ca
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Everyone
This week it came to my attention that in the UK. Lady Jane Campbell  is a champion for anti assisted suicide legislation. seem to me that we can all learn from her speech. Can UK members access her speech?  If yes I would love to read it.
Maria
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  


Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve





On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
 
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
 
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
 
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
 
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
 
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
 
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
 
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
 
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
 
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
 
 
 
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides
 
 




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5
Tel: 450.455.5318





#12429 From: "Alex Schadenberg" <euthanasiaprevention@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:44 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
euthanasiaprevention@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Maria:
 
Please send us a link to her speech.
 
Alex
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

Hi Everyone
This week it came to my attention that in the UK. Lady Jane Campbell  is a champion for anti assisted suicide legislation. seem to me that we can all learn from her speech. Can UK members access her speech?  If yes I would love to read it.
Maria
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioethics] Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  


Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve





On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
 
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
 
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
 
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
 
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
 
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
 
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
 
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
 
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
 
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
 
 
 
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides
 
 




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5
Tel: 450.455.5318





#12430 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: Rsultats des consultations publiques sur la question de mourir dans la dignit au Qubec/ Results of Qc public hearings
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
Attention: Linda Coture
Linda, this just came in at the best time. Are you on the Bioethics listserve group, on Yahoo? In case you aren't, I'm going to forward this for you. Also, Linda, I learned recently that Living With Dignity chapters are going strong in several states of the U.S.!

2011/11/16 info@... <info@...>
VIVRE DANS LA DIGNIT
LIVING WITH DIGNITY
16 novembre 2011


English follows
EXCLUSIF
Rsultats des consultations qubcoises sur la question de mourir dans la dignit.
Vivre dans la Dignit a men une analyse indpendante exhaustive des quelque 427 mmoires et prsentations orales la Commission sur mourir dans la dignit. Les chiffres sont clairs. Parmi les mmoires et prsentations faites devant la CSQMD, 99% considrent que les soins palliatifs constituent le choix digne pour les Qubcois en fin de vie. De plus, 60% sont totalement opposs leuthanasie et au suicide assist. Seulement un tiers (34%) des personnes qui ont particip aux auditions taient favorables leuthanasie.
SVP Diffusez l'information massivement
________________________________________________________________________

LIVING WITH DIGNITY... ending naturally
Exclusive
Results of public hearings held in Quebec on dying with dignity
Living with Dignity conducted an independent analysis of the 427 oral presentations and written submissions to the Select committee on dying with dignity
The numbers are black and white. In the presentations to the Commission there was 99 per cent agreement that palliative care is the dignified choice Quebecers want available at the end of life. At the same time, 60 per cent of the submissions opposed any opening for euthanasia.Only about a third ( 34%) of those who submitted to the commission were either somewhat or strongly in favor of euthanasia.
Please Share the information widely
Linda Couture
Directrice Vivre dans la Dignit
DevenezDONATEURS et soutenez Vivre dans la Dignit dans ses actions citoyennes.
BecomeDONORSand support Living with Dignity's mission.
Nous avons besoin de votre soutien! We need your support!
Vivre dans la Dignit, C.P. 34086, Lachine, Qubec (514) 639-6814



--
Ironsides


#12431 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 

@Steve So, my terminology is counter-constructive to debate, but the escalating rate of body-bags against consent is constructive to the debate, is that the message? I have absolutely no intention in changing my position, nor changing my communications skills related to euthanasia/assisted-suicide.
As far as I'm concerned, euthanasia is murder regardless of what play of words it is dressed up in. Every euthanasia Law was swimming in the same water of propaganda: oceans of "safeguards". This so-called Royal-Society of stuffed-shirt experts need to take all their ROYALTY back to England.
I've got one last question:
Should your life be put on a table for a debate???--If not, why the hell should my life be, or the people up and down the hall?

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Steve Payette <stevepayette@...> wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view. Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions? I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to). What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way. I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.


Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion? I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve





On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:


"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll. Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada? VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5







--
Ironsides


#12432 From: Steve Payette <stevepayette@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
stevepayette@...
Send Email Send Email
 
@ironsides  Exactly my point!  You don't want someone else deciding what's right for you just like I don't want someone else (you) deciding what's right for me.  I'm not asking you to change your position.  It's fine by me that you think one way and others think the other way.  I'm actually undecided on the issue, but your turning this into a bitchingfest means that someone undecided on the issue (like me and the silent majority) has a harder time separating my personal distaste for your manner from my feelings towards the actual issue. You're actually doing more harm to your cause than good by alienating potential allies with your pushiness. You say 'every euthanasia law is swimming in the same water of propaganda'  but wouldn't the opposite camp say the same thing about your position? 

Perhaps this forum should've been called 'Anti-euthanasia forum' instead of the neutral term 'bioethics' which is the space where both sides should be 'heard' (or at least that's what I assumed when I joined).  


Steve




On 2011-11-16, at 2:35 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 


@Steve So, my terminology is counter-constructive to debate, but the escalating rate of body-bags against consent is constructive to the debate, is that the message? I have absolutely no intention in changing my position, nor changing my communications skills related to euthanasia/assisted-suicide.
 
As far as I'm concerned, euthanasia is murder regardless of what play of words it is dressed up in. Every euthanasia Law was swimming in the same water of propaganda: oceans of "safeguards". This so-called Royal-Society of stuffed-shirt experts need to take all their ROYALTY back to England.
 
I've got one last question:
 
Should your life be put on a table for a debate???--If not, why the hell should my life be, or the people up and down the hall?

 
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Steve Payette <stevepayette@...> wrote:
 

I'm sorry, but I don't share this view.  Is this a group about discussing bioethics and bioethics research or is it a space for univocal opinions?  I'm not necessarily pro-euthanasia, but I do believe in a certain form of deliberation and communication ethics (which I thought this group adhered to).  What I'm saying is, thanks for bringing up the Huff-post article but please respect that just as you have the right to your opinions, so do the people you rhetorically position in a derogatory way.  I understand that you had a negative personal experience (likely more than one) but I don't care to have it pushed on me (much like I wouldn't care to have some vehement believer in his/her right to self-terminate force their anecdotes on me). Referring to one's-side as "nonviolent pacifist" and the other as part of a "Death-Cult" doesn't allow for constructive debate of the issue.  


Could the moderator please let me know if this group is for rational discussion or venting one's opinion?  I may need to rethink my membership.

Steve





On 2011-11-15, at 6:40 PM, Ironsides wrote:

 

"But the panel says that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of finding an even-handed way to allow voluntary assisted suicide but would not permit anything involuntary."
The above statement is a pure lie, and as I've always emphasized, that the Death-Cult are going to railroad a law through.--And they don't care what is legal, moral, ethical or anything else.
 
Like everywhere they have their laws passed, the only people who resist legalized-killing are nonviolent pacifists.
 
The only road back to civilized human-rights after their KILL-BILLS are passed, is if Robert Latimer, Svend Robinson, Yves Robert and a few others fail to survive drive-bys and unfortunate bad cups of coffee.
 
The average fucntioning brain who has lived in long-term, or is a chronic acut-care patient since the Terri Schiavo death should be able to see how workers are rotated so inconsistently, that on-site killers will have a free-for-all.
 
People call in everyday, sick. They're replaced by somebody else who knows nothing and nobody, because they haven't been on the floor for X number of weeks or months, etc. Every "care-giver", and the scare-givers obey orders with unquestioning obedience.--Pure military training and actions.
 
My last time in two ICU's during May and June 2008, the nurses refused to let me have water in my food-tube, the night I was testing a high-protein, high-calorie liquid food. The nurses refused to let me have water, because it was "not ordered" by the nutritionist.
 
After three hours, I was so loaded with food, it impaired my breathing to where the alarm on the ventilator was going-off at times. During the late evening-shift, the doctor refused to call the doctor in charge or the nutritionist about not prescribing water. The doctor insisted that I could not be dehydrated in less than a day, although I was urinating alot.
 
I didn't dare get into bed, because I would have died of a respiratory-failure on the spot. As hours went by during the night-shift, things got worse, and I knew that if the nurse checked my glucose-level, it would show how stressed my pancreas and liver were. He refused to. His argument was that the day-shift was not checking my glucose, and I am not diabetic.--Well, that night I was.
 
He didn't want to hear about it, and the doctor was asleep.--So, he refused to disturb the doctor. By 5 am I was spitting blood from my stomach, and from my lungs. The nurse didn't want to hear about it.
 
So, those so-called experts on the panel, are all Death-Cult agents.--And they all deserve whatever or whoever meets them.
 
 
 
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alex Schadenberg <euthanasiaprevention@...> wrote:
The Huffington Post has a poll.  Go to the following story and scroll to the bottom.

Should assisted suicide be legalized in Canada?   VOTE NO!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/assisted-suicide-expert-panel-canada-euthanasia_n_1094619.html



--
Ironsides
 
 




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5









--
Ironsides
 
 




Steve Payette
247 rue Emond
Vaudreuil-Dorion, Qc
J7V 2B5
Tel: 450.455.5318





#12433 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:33 pm
Subject: Barbara Kay: Euthanasia report is reassuring but misleading
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
This was published less than two hours ago, and it documents bioethicist Margaret Somerville. I can't do the subject justice, and it is good to see that information is available to people who want it.
There are people in this room right now, that if these Death-pushers get their Law to kill, as soon as they get sick the next time, they'll be conveniently disposed of. It's not that this hospital is different than any other hospital or long-term facility, but rather the cognitive-process of many care-givers. You can have very good doctors, but doctors are not around long-term patients much of the time.--The "care-givers" are.
It's not their fault, how they see things. They have different levels of education and diverse personal interests, and work hard. When they are short-staffed pretty regularly, they have to get everything done for more patients, and sometimes problems crop up.
When people work hard, go home to relax, what does it do to them to get hit-in-the-face with ramblings on radio, television and newspapers about some suffering people who might be or might not be, just another propaganda piece, to cultivate everybody's minds? How many people really understand what "psy-ops" are? Who is going to go out to investigate these mainstream-news pieces, after they have come home from work or school?
After being pounded year after year since the Sue Rodriguez case,Canada is being bossed around by a network of lofty philosophers, that we had better change the way we think to please them, or there will be trouble.
Two years ago Francine Lalonde's campaign was waged insulting Canadian laws as being "too religious". This so-called expert panel is not going to get away with flat-out lies, that the euthanasia laws are hunky-dory, and like-it-or-not our decision was unanimous.--So, it's our way, or now way at all.

--
Ironsides


#12434 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:22 am
Subject: Re: Re: VOTE NO to legalizing assisted suicide
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
The first time I landed here was September 3/94. They wanted me to use a ventilator at nights, after they extubated me. One month later, I returned to the farm myself and two roommates rented.
In the religious cult we worked with, the founder believed in euthanasia. So, I was pretty convinced that, when I had another respiratory-failure on the farm, the Sue Rodriguez and Robert Latimer events were front-burner. So I came to the ER tothrow in the towel. When I came to the ER, I signed the papers to just die, and get it over with. I refused intubation, and the doctor asked them to put me on the Bi-pap.
When I woke up the next morning, I was still here. After discharge from the ICU, I was sent to Acute-care. They explained that I could not return to the farm, and that I needed to apply for long-term care. The first thing I did was blow-a-fuse. I didn't even know what was meant by long-term care. I demanded that I needed to check-out and get an apartment. This was in January '95.
A social-worker, occupational-therapist, doctor and head-nurse arranged a meeting, and explained that to get an apartment and home-care services, would be 3-5 years even for Quebecers.--Then I really went-off! I rubbed-it-in that they boasted how they were shutting down hospitals, to move people into their own homes, and I'm on a 3-5 year waiting-list?
They got me names, phone-numbers and addresses for me to make the Bouchard government's lives miserable to the bone. Every time I turned around, the government's priority was the Separatists' second referendum. I guaranteed everybody I spoke to in government, that they could stick Separatist-Politics you know where, because Disability-Rights is the only priority there is. I rubbed every Separatist's nose in it, that 1980 was their year for Separatist-Politics, but this year ('95) was Disability-Rights Politics. Even a Separatist on IRC one night, agreed with me, after I flooded the network with my rants against Separatism, and Disability-Rights.
One of the polling-stations was downstairs in this building, and I definitely took my campaign to the voters.--LOL! By July 1/96 I was able to move into an apartment. It was alright for three years, until the hospital unions went on the rampage due to the cutbacks. It affected home-care workers in the private agencies, and in 2000, I had to move back here.--But when I got back to the long-term unit, believe me, the attitudes of most nurses and PA's had drastically declined, with Bouchard's cutbacks and more euthanasia warriors on a crusade for Death Without Dignity!
The bottom-line is this:
When you understand that people have always died, and always will, what has changed is attitudes toward end-of-life. Throughout history, living as long as people can, was perceived as a virtue. One paper I read a few years ago was a complaint, by a philosopherin the early 1800's, that between the 1500's-1800's there were fewer and fewer people living well over 100 years old. They were proud of being able to live to 130 years old, the ones who lived that long.
I can't find the paper I looked for, because now all those papers are moved to servers for pay-to-view.
The people who have turned end-of-life into a bore-and-chore, and a scare-not-dare, are people who are scared of the unknown. If this network of scare-mongers had never flooded newspapers, radio and television with scare-mania about pain, dignity and everything associated with end-of-life, there never would have been a problem. I have been around quite a few people who have died here over the space of eleven years, and the Duty-to-Die marketeers have done nothing productive or constructive.
All the supposed people who wanted to die, had enough favour and clout to get media attention so they could be on-stage demanding legalized Death. My argument is, all those people could have been legally dead, by just terminating medical treatments and stopped eating and taking in fluids. When they were in distress, they qualified for palliative-care which includes morphine.
So, where does the justification come in, for any debate???--Any debate should aim at targeting Monsanto, Global-Pharma and the war-manufacturers for poisoning the food, air and water with all the chemicals which trigger neuro-muscular diseases, diabetes, blood-diseases and intolerable pain.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Steve Payette <stevepayette@...> wrote:

@ironsides Exactly my point! You don't want someone else deciding what's right for you just like I don't want someone else (you) deciding what's right for me. I'm not asking you to change your position. It's fine by me that you think one way and others think the other way. I'm actually undecided on the issue, but your turning this into a bitchingfest means that someone undecided on the issue (like me and the silent majority) has a harder time separating my personal distaste for your manner from my feelings towards the actual issue. You're actually doing more harm to your cause than good by alienating potential allies with your pushiness. You say 'every euthanasia law is swimming in the same water of propaganda' but wouldn't the opposite camp say the same thing about your position?

Perhaps this forum should've been called 'Anti-euthanasia forum' instead of the neutral term 'bioethics' which is the space whereboth sides should be 'heard' (or at least that's what I assumed when I joined).
Steve

--
Ironsides

#12435 From: Ironsides <ironsidesx@...>
Date: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:46 am
Subject: What the Duty to Die Network Need to Complain About
ironsides1st
Send Email Send Email
 
Since the Duty-to-Die network are determined that they are going to get their law passed to legalize their lucrative killing-spree, all because some of their peers in disguised science networks have feverishly worked since the 1980's to "geo-engineer" the planet, this is a bioethics issue which should have bioethicists in an outrage.
Why are $billion$ being pumped-out of military and commercial air-craft 365 days a year, since the 1990's to deliberately lower the population?
At least India had some guts when they were contacted last year, and got their own fighter-jets, and help from Nigeria fighter-jets, who gave the U.S. two terrorists of the skies the option, to land those planes, or get shot down.
If Duty-to-Die supporters and promoters want to tolerate those guys up there destroying everybody's health, and slowly killing people off painfully, they need to eat their pie painfully.--And stop crying about their "dignity", autonomy" and everything else.

--
Ironsides


Messages 12406 - 12435 of 12532   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help