Doctors Euthanized Healthy 29-Year-Old Woman Because She Had Mental Health Problems

http://www.lifenews.com/2018/01/30/doctors-euthanized-healthy-29-year-old-woman-because-she-had-mental-health-problems/

It is very upsetting to writing about the assisted death for psychiatric reasons of Aurelia Brouwers, the 29-year-old physically healthy Dutch woman. Aurelia died, as scheduled, on January 26.

I did not know Aurelia, personally, but I communicated with her and I urged her to live. I told her that I cared about her.

Aurelia made her assisted death a campaign to promote euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Arjen ten Cate and Ingrid Willems published an interesting article in Destentor.nlexamining the attitudes of psychiatrists towards psychiatric euthanasia. ten Cate and Willems interviewed four psychiatrists.

rank Koerselman, an emeritas professor of psychiatry, opposes euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Koerselman states: (google translated)

The… Netherlands is completely wrong when it comes to euthanasia. He calls it a slippery slope. “Only when euthanasia became possible in physical medicine did we start developing good palliative care. That is the reverse order? Now the same thing happens in psychiatry. There is no policy for chronic patients, but we do allow euthanasia. ”

Koerselman is convinced that psychiatric patients can not make a sober, intellectual decision whether or not to live. “There are always emotions like fear, shame or anger. It is an illusion with the syndrome to think that such a decision is well-considered.”

Koerselman, who stated that he is definitely not religious, stated:

psychiatrists can not judge this. For even psychiatrists are not able to look into the patient’s head in such a way that he or she can judge whether a death wish is justified. “We overestimate ourselves as a professional group.”

Menno Oosterhoff, who knew Aurelia personally and who lives with compulsive disorder, is a psychiatrist who supports euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. The article states (google translated):

it is not up to the masses, or a professional group to give an opinion on one specific patient. ,, Only the patient himself, his doctor and psychiatrist can make a good estimate.

According to Oosterhoff there are too many prejudices about people with psychological problems who have a death wish. “That they have a lack of willpower is such a preconception. People’s prejudices tend to be more difficult when it comes to an individual person. If you know Aurelia’s story yourself. She is terminal because her soul is failing. There are too many theoretical objections to euthanasia.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Jim van Os is a professor of psychiatry who does not oppose euthanasia but is concerned that it may become too common:

There are examples of patients with a very strong death wish, who asked for euthanasia and did not get it and now a happy one life, because they have found the love of their lives, for example.

Van Os is worried about the growing demand for euthanasia in psychiatry. He does not want to go into the specific case ‘Aurelia’. “But in a general sense you may wonder if we have done enough to help these people.” … How is it that someone wants to die? Should we have been unable to do something at an earlier stage? “This professor also notes that the GGZ in the Netherlands is under pressure due to cutbacks. Dangerous, he says. GGZ Nederland does not want to accept this criticism.

Psychiatrist Bram Baker, who had a friend who died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, set up a signature campaign opposing euthanasia for psychiatric suffering. According to the article:

He is critical: “Legally, it is allowed. But a judgment about psychic, unbearable suffering is always subjective. You can not take a position as a psychiatrist, that is very scary. And I think euthanasia is going too far. Is there no other option?

Several excellent articles have been published opposing euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

Ex-FBI Chief Exposes Satanic Illuminati Elite Pedophile Ring

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8witRMuKg

 

A former FBI Chief details how the Illuminati, Satanism, pedophilia and child sex trafficking are rampant in Washington, D.C. He also claims that our government was responsible for the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center Bombings. Is he right? David Zublick unseal the horrible truth that may have cost this man his life in this special report!

 

 

Consent Without Choice

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269053/consent-without-choice-daniel-greenfield

56% of younger millennials identify as Christian, 2% as Jewish or Muslim, and 1% as Buddhist. Another 36% identify as nothing. That’s double the number of ”nones” among baby boomers. Being a “none” often means having no sense of purpose, except to seek personal happiness and make the world a better place by recycling, opposing Trump and calling out racism. It also means a moral code based on an academic analysis of power relationships between races, genders and sexual orientations.

An editor at The Atlantic writes of girls educated by the mores of the fifties being “strong in a way that so many modern girls are weak”. They were taught “over and over again that if a man tried to push you into anything you didn’t want, even just a kiss, you told him flat out you weren’t doing it. If he kept going, you got away from him… They told you to do whatever it took to stop him from using your body in any way you didn’t want, and under no circumstances to go down without a fight.”

The conclusion appends the modern metric of consent to another era. But the girls of that era weren’t taught to fight hard over consent. It’s not that they didn’t believe in consent. That was taken for granted. But they also believed in more than just consent.

Consent is a legal formality, not a moral purpose. We consent to things we don’t want to all the time. Often it’s because we make bad decisions. Consent is not a permanent state of being. It’s a quantum state. The decision I made yesterday looks much worse when I see its consequences today. Legal agreements can bind me to the car I bought on a whim yesterday, but no legal agreement binds the emotions of sexual consent.

The retroactive withdrawal of consent is one of the more controversial topics of the consent debate. Can consent be withdrawn retroactively? What if new information emerges? Is consent formalized over an extended period or is it a momentary event?  That’s not how the law works, but it is often how the human mind operates. And we hold people accountable to the law, not to the complexities of the human psyche.

Consent is legally significant, but psychologically meaningless. I know that I will regret tomorrow the beers that I drink today. I did buy 300 lottery tickets, but that was only because I thought I would win. The true opposite of consent isn’t refusal, it’s apathy. We don’t make that many conscious decisions. Mostly we go with the flow.

That is what can make consent so ambiguous. The recent Aziz Ansari case, like so many others, didn’t emerge from a crucial refusal, but from a protagonist who was somewhat unwilling, but not truly conscious of her unwillingness. This general unconsciousness is how we often go through our days. We stumble into decisions without thinking about them. And only later do we realize how much they mattered.

Previous generations understood that our decisions, our whims and consents, had to be ordered by a larger purpose. But the millennial “nones” are the least likely to understand that. And without that purpose, there are only states governed by the emotions of the moment, hope, desire, disappointment, betrayal, loneliness, that are incomprehensible in any other state. Pain, joy, hunger, love and anger exist in the moment. They can be recollected, but the way that they drive us when we feel them cannot be duplicated in another moment. The decision we make under the impetus of one emotion can be swiftly negated by experiencing another emotion.

The history of human civilization is built on societies ordering the various states of human emotions to a higher purpose. That is one of the fundamental gifts of religion. Philosophers across thousands of years sought answers and offered solutions. And then in the last few generations, we tossed them all on the rubbish heap and exchanged them for Marxist pottage.

Macroscopic analyses of class, gender and race have replaced individual meaning. Millennial nones know that they should never vote Republican, but they have no idea how to make personal choices that reflect who they want to be, rather than what they feel right now.

The mixture of Marxist macro-analysis and Freudian psychobabble that defined the age has left them with the conclusion that their gender, class and racial categories have shaped them on a subconscious level. The left has told them that don’t make choices; instead they have power relationships that reflect their innate privilege.

These ideas have gifted them with the retroactive victimhood and preemptive guilt of people who don’t really make their decisions, but are ready to apologize for or rage over the inevitable outcomes of the power relationships that define their lives. That’s the difference between the ambiguous apologies of millennial celebrities like James Franco and Aziz Ansari, and the older boomer stars who clearly deny or admit their guilt.

Millennial male nones live in a world where their gendered guilt exists as a permanent blot that indicts them even as it frees them to misbehave. The impersonal guilt assigned to them by the power relationship of their identity robs them of purpose. All they have are the original sins of identity politics to check, call out, and be damned by.

The lack of purpose makes all human relationships casual. But the casual ethics of two people passing on the street are insufficient for more important relationships. And yet the more serious the relationship, the less postmodern ethics are up to its task.

Religious people or those with a conscious philosophy of life are quite capable of wrongdoing. But they also have an awareness of what they are doing wrong. The “nones” often don’t become aware of a moral component to their actions until they experience suffering. Robbed of a meaningful philosophy, they experience only the breaches of it, the way that children raised badly only learn through pain.

Consent tells them that they have the power to decide. But they have no basis for making their decisions. The abstract idea of consent has little to do with why people actually consent.

Reducing sexuality to the transactional ethics of consent satisfies legal, but not human requirements. It’s a recipe for retrospective anger and pain. The ethics of consent don’t make us better people. They reduce us to the barest and most exploitative ethics. And then they negotiate whether wrongdoing occurred within the narrow legal parameters of consent or the wider ones of intersectional privilege.

But morality goes beyond consent. Its ethics go beyond legality. It asks that we do more than just get the customer’s signature on the dotted line for the overpriced junkheap we’re selling him. Consent as the core of modern sexual ethics is Crowley’s Do What Thou Wilt modified with, As Long As Maybe They Wilt It Too. But truly moral and ethical people don’t ask or offer certain things. They don’t condition the rightness of their actions on momentary reciprocal feelings, but on their own values.

Consent sets feelings against law. Then it asks the law to encompass the mutability and ambiguity of emotions. And the only way to do that is to remove any possible defense of legal consent. The law superseding morality, only to then be superseded by emotion, is a capsule history of the militant left which begins with abstract codes and theories, and then replaces them with the violent whims of outrage.

The debate over consent is only one of the many ways that this upends our societies.

The left doesn’t believe that consent is absolute. It bases the degree of consent on the extent to which an individual has been educated about his privilege and the level of his oppression. It follows then that lefties and the oppressed should have the lowest rates of sexual assault.

But the opposite is true.

The #MeToo movement has mostly entangled lefties who pursued consent in predatory fashion. And they did so by creating an environment in which consent could be obtained with sufficient pressure. But what can be obtained with sufficient pressure can also be withdrawn with sufficient pressure. And in the absence of meaningful relationships, all that remains is the power struggle of pressure against pressure.

A moral society asks us to treat people, not based on what we want them to consent to, or even what they want, but as the principles of a higher being would want us to.

“We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion,” John Adams warned.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” Benjamin Franklin cautioned more simply.

These aren’t abstractions to be measured on the vast scale of civilizations. They define how we live our ordinary lives. They are why this debate is taking place.

Free people consent. But freedom comes from virtue. Freedom without virtue ends in brutality and tyranny. That outcome isn’t only expressed in riots in the streets. It emerges in smaller and more intimate matters, like the debate over consent.

The left wants to replace consent with the brutality of online smear campaigns and the tyranny of campus kangaroo courts. Its identity politics teach that we are either perpetrators or victims. But we are neither of those things. We are human beings.

The politics of the left reward bad choices by teaching learned helplessness. Its creed is the impotence of the victim and the perpetrator. Good choices come from what the left denies its victims: purpose. Consent without purpose is not a choice. It’s an erratic impulse that can vanish just as swiftly.

We don’t truly have freedom of consent until we have purpose. Consent is not meaningful. Choice is. And to truly choose, you have to know who you are.

Banned from campus, groups fight back

In the padded cells that are our current universities, there’s no room for clubs who are anti-abortion or who refuse to acknowledge “the patriarchy.”

There’s no room for debate. No place for divergent views contrary to their own orthodoxies.

The student unions at Ryerson, UofT Mississauga, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College refused to authorize three clubs who run afoul of current delicate political correctness: two are pro-life and a third is a men’s rights group. Now these banned heretics have gone to court, backed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, to fight the “bad faith and bias” that has denied them official status on campus.

Justice Centre lawyer Marty Moore was in Superior Court Wednesday to argue the student associations keep changing the rules of entry to block these groups over their currently unpopular views. He urged Justice Paul Perell to order the associations to accredit the three clubs as a matter of “natural justice.”

“Student unions’ actions against students with differing ideological perspectives is stifling democratic discussion and debate on campus, where diversity of opinion is supposed to flourish,” he argued in a factum filed earlier with the court.

Without official sanction, clubs can’t get student union funding and can’t advertise, book rooms and information tables, or host speakers and debates on campus, he said. They’re essentially pariahs without a voice.

Ryerson’s Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) was created in 2015 to deal with issues that disproportionately affect men and boys, “such as higher rates of suicide, homelessness, workplace injuries and failure in school.” Nearly half of MIAS’ members are women.

But the club has repeatedly been denied recognition by the Ryerson Students’ Union. The RSU claimed the group could cause an “unsafe” environment for women on campus and has purported links to anti-feminist groups, which it denies. The biggest strike against them, it seems, is that they haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid: they were told it was an RSU requirement to acknowledge the “systemic privilege that men have.”

“They have to acknowledge there’s a systemic suppression of women?” the judge asked incredulously.

He was told that they must.

“Isn’t there something wrong in making someone take an oath on what they believe or don’t believe?” Perrel asked. “Isn’t there something offensive requiring someone to acknowledge someone else’s belief systems?”

There certainly is.

On Oct. 27, 2015, MIAS was informed its application for club status had been rejected.

“The reasons they gave us were ridiculous,” the group’s former president Kevin Arriola recalled in an interview. “They claimed that we would bring violence and misogyny against women on campus, which is not true. Half our members were women. If you look at our mandate, our constitution, as well as the events that we held, none of them were in any way directed negatively towards women. ”

UTM Students for Life used to have club status at UofT Mississauga but the students’ union refused to renew them because of their “stance on abortion.” Then they changed tack and said it was because of technical problems in their constitution. Yet when SFL tried to make the required changes, Moore claimed the student association stacked the meeting with people opposed to the group and the motion failed.

These “shenanigans,” he said, are examples of the bad faith these clubs have endured. Perell conceded it seemed rather “kafkaesque.”

The third group, Speak for the Weak, was told it was denied club status because it’s pro-life and allowing the club on campus would run counter to “building an environment free of systemic societal oppression and decolonization.”

For heaven’s sake.

Meanwhile, the lawyers for the student unions insisted they are private corporations making private decisions and the court has no right to interfere. The Charter, they argued, doesn’t apply to them.

But they operate in public institutions funded by tax dollars – why do they get to silence voices that have a right to be heard?

The judge has reserved his decision.

http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-banned-from-campus-groups-fight-back