In Britain over the last twenty or so years there has been a solid encouragement for those claiming long term benefits, to shift from looking for work to a position of unable to work. The options in the beginning came under the guise of medical certificates from the GP to state you are unfit for work due to some sort of illness. This was enough to stop any form of harassment from the staff at the Jobcentres as they moved to help you find work that did not exist as the cover to put you on a nursery course in order some corporate outsource provider could fleece the taxpayer under contract.
Since the arrival of Tony Blair and his New Labour back in 1997, there was a further metamorphosis of all things medical benefits to a position of mental health. Again claimants were encouraged to move in the direction of claiming some sort of mental health issue, in order their current woes from the DWP disappeared and they continue to receive unhindered state handouts.
Such has been the uptake to this sinister agenda by claimants today they are able to fund a huge network of demented folks called psychiatrists, who are happy to interview you and pull from the cauldron a range of disorders from which you suffer, everybody is happy, the shrink gets paid, the pharmaceuticals get another customer, and the claimant gets his or her handout every fortnight.
Today the young crypto-royals in the U.K, led by Prince William, are pushing for your children to register as mentally ill. The real sinister agenda playing out here comes on the back of the fact that 58,399 people were detained under the Mental Health Act in 2014/15. Thus by your own consent, once you register as a mental retard you can be whisked off into nutty land at the drop of a hat… A dangerous precedent to give the fiction.
So what is the next level agenda when it comes to the corporate state dissecting your life to determine the best way they can satisfy the climate change legislation, whilst making the largest amount of profit from your dilemma? A dilemma brought to your door by the same kind of people that told you to go for the mentally ill label?….. They created customers.
The following information should help you see where your life is going if you have fallen for the easy route of existence, with the corporate state as your overlord under the mental health program :
Hastings Center fellow Bonnie Steinbock, suggests assisted death for psychiatric cases is the logical consequence of current euthanasia legislation :
The case for absolute exclusion of psychiatric conditions has not been made. It may be justified, in some cases and under certain conditions. Assisted death should always be a last resort, whether the condition prompting the request is physical illness or psychiatric condition.
She discusses the potential objections that could be made to broadening the scope of the law, and suggests that none of them is convincing. Many argue that the terminal illness requirement is appropriate. But Steinbock asserts that terminal illness is rarely the real motivation for patients seeking euthanasia :
The data from Oregon show that physical suffering is not a primary reason why people request aid-in-dying. Loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, and loss of things that make life pleasurable and meaningful are more often cited as reasons. These too can cause intense suffering, although it is not the kind of suffering that can be addressed by morphine or other pain-relieving drugs. Moreover, concerns like these are not limited to those who are terminally ill.
The morally relevant features that justify restricting physician-assisted death are, I submit, incurable conditions and severe, unrelenting suffering, not terminal illness.
Steinbock also addresses the claim that mental illness impairs decision making capacity :
Certainly PAD should not be offered lightly. However, if a patient has undergone all available therapy for years, to no avail, and as a result has such severe and unrelenting suffering that he or she wants to die, it is hard to see why this isn’t a legitimate reason for requesting PAD and why a compassionate physician has to refuse such a request.
She quotes the cautionary words of famous legal academic and euthanasia opponent Yale Kamisar; yet she suggests that checks and balances can be put in place to prevent the misuse of PAS for the mentally ill.
The solution to the slippery slope is not to impose arbitrary restrictions based on the source of suffering, but to limit PAD to those with severe and unrelenting suffering that cannot be alleviated any other way.
Kamisar tends to be quoted at his most moderate. In a 1976 essay, he presented a historical examination of euthanasia, discussing among other things forced euthanasia in Nazi Germany. Kamisar suggested that wherever euthanasia for the mentally ill has been authorised, involuntary euthanasia might not be far off :
Why should the prospects of the police state and the systematic extermination of certain political or racial minorities be taken any less seriously when we enter the sickroom or the mental institution, when we deal with not very healthy or not very useful people, when we discuss euthanasia under whatever trade name?
Starving the Mentally Ill
When Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalise the practice of assisted suicide, pro-life advocates argued this would be a slippery slope that would lead to euthanasia.
Apparently assisted suicide is not enough for the death pedlars in this Pacific Northwest State. Now they are pushing legislation in the Oregon State Legislature that would allow starving mentally ill patients to death.
The last psychopath: using the brain to root out disorder
Psychiatrists And Professors Are Lobbying To Normalise And Decriminalise Paedophilia
Psychiatry and its Views on Education
The Lilly Wave and psychotronic warfare