message. It is short, simple and a lot closer to the absolute truth than
most of the shit I come up with.
Is this clarity or insanity? We live in an insane world where a report
comes out showing 1,800 unnecessary deaths every year and the profession
responsible for the deaths is not held accountable. No one is. The
government target is a reduction to the third the number of unnecessary
deaths. They're failing to meet the targets from what I hear.
The treatment does not deal the brain disease and there is evidence show
it causes bran matter lose as well as reduced life expectancy. The
treatment is not a medical treatment. It is the use of a chemical to
fulfil a social and cultural need to make the elderly docile and easy to
manage.
A simple way to side step the moral and ethical concerns would be
institute advance directives where the patients could chose whether they
wanted to be chemically coshed or not if their condition deteriorated.
I just wonder how different this solution would be from assisted
suicide. The treatment has been shown to reduce life expectancy and
cause brain damage. It will reduce a person's life expectancy but it
doesn't treat the brain disease. A person who understands this and
agrees to the use of the drug would be asking for their life to be shorten.
It's not quite assisted suicide. The advance decision idea is a slow
assisted death.
--
---
Please can I ask for a few second of your time to click this link and like my suggestion.
http://tinyurl.com/equalitydata
I need the data about health outcomes sorted by race, gender, age and other characteristics so I can see if disadvantaged groups are being further disdavantaged by London GPs.
No comments:
Post a Comment