That’s today’s news, folks. Doctors and nurses can kill you when you want them to — or when you don’t want them to.

Share

Just like the Nazis did. Before WW II. Sliding down the slippery slope of “Life Unworthy of Life”, of euthanasia, of a worthy death, of cleaning/sanitizing/improving society. The Geno-Slide!

Same-o, Same-o in Canada. Shout out to Lawyer Lisa Maron for sharing, without commentary, the official death management curriculum of the Canadian MAID, Medical Assistance in Dying, program.

In Canada, doctors can kill you. Nurses can kill you. In the spirit of inclusiveness (I did not make this up), you do not need to be close to death to die. If you are despondent or have some other mental condition, you can just go off and die. We’ll help you. If you are a sad or sick veteran in Canada, you can just nicely go die. We’ll help you.
You’re welcome.

Leave a comment

Before we go further with Canadian official murder and depopulation policy Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID),

let me tell you a story. Unfortunately, the story is true.

My father was born in 1912. About 92 years later my mother was dead and my father was living in an Assisted Living community in Florida. He was fully compos mentis, on a great many medications, which made no sense to me medically, and he was very lonely. My husband, Bert, formally known as Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Deceased), and I were living in Volcan, Chiriqui, Panama, running Valley of the Moon, a rather amazing eco-demonstration Center as part of the work of the Natural Solutions Foundation.

I suggested to Bert that we bring my father to live with us for both medical and personal reasons and, of course, Bert enthusiastically agreed. We proposed the option to my father, and he was thrilled about the possibility. He was excited as a kid about having his very first passport and Bert and I booked our tickets to bring him back to Panama with us from Florida.

The Thursday before our Tuesday departure to Florida, I spoke to my father, and he said that he had slipped when maneuvering off his scooter and had bruised the small of his back. He was in the hospital (?) for observation (?) overnight (?) and would be released the next day.

I called the next day (Friday) and a nurse told me that my father was asleep. He was asleep each time I called back. I left messages for his doctor, a cardiologist, to call me.

He did not. Each time I called, my father was “asleep” and the doctor was, regrettably, “not available and, no, he could not be paged”.

Finally, on Sunday, another doctor, a nephrologist, told me that my father had only a few hours to live. I told the nephrologist I did not understand and she told me that his doctor was, unfortunately, not available and she could not tell me more.

My father did, indeed die shortly thereafter.

Bert and I took the flight to Florida on Tuesday as planned, but now it was to clean out my dead father’s apartment, not to pack up his things and bring him home with us.

While we were in the apartment, the phone rang and a woman identified herself as Renata [her real name], a long-term friend of both my parents. My parents had mentioned her many times, but I had never met her. She told us that she would like to meet us for dinner so she could tell us what happened to my father. She suggested a time and location.

We met Renata, a late middle-aged woman, at a nice restaurant and she told us that she had something to tell us. “I killed your father”, she said with a little grin. We gawked at her and gasped out some sort of a question.

She told us that 10 years before my father had responded coldly and uncaringly when she told him she was being stalked and threatened by her divorcing husband, and she decided to “bide my time to get even”. (Just for the record, of course my father responded coldly and uncaringly. He was a pretty thoroughgoing narcissist who really only cared about things that were of significance to himself. Renata’s problems predictably meant little to him.)

Renata said that she had told the nursing staff in the hospital that she was his only daughter, Rima, and then told the doctor, his long-term cardiologist, that my father was “ready to go”, and that he had “had a good life but it was time for him to leave”. Not only did the doctor/nurse/ward clerk/administrator not ask for any identification or authorization to make such a pronouncement or decision, but the doctor never bothered to respond to any of the calls I, using my name, of course, had placed increasingly urgently on his voicemail and answering service.

He also neglected to discuss the possibility of medical murder with my father who was enthusiastic about his forthcoming move to Central America and not at all “ready to go”!

So he discontinued all seven of the major medications my father was taking, causing heart and kidney failure, preceded, of course, by coma, which was misrepresented to me as my father “being asleep.”

What the physician did was a capital offense in Florida when he did it. On the following Wednesday, March 23, 2010, it became a matter of national policy. That was the day that Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and colloquially as Obamacare, was signed into law by President Barack Obama. That act did what the UK just did, what Canada is doing and what country after country is doing in keeping with yet another part of the United Nations’ diabolical Malthusian Management scheme, better known as the “Sustainable Development Goals”.

Oh, by the way, Renata got away with her murder. So did my father’s doctor. I am not sure that karma actually exists,

but I am certainly voting for it!

I mean, doctors and nurses making life and death decisions that they believe they are empowered and entitled to make. What could possibly go wrong? That’s euthanasia, isn’t it? No, it’s actually murder on a one by one case, genocide when the numbers get big enough.

What could go wrong? How about killing people because of economic, personal, social and/or personal aspirations, expectations and goals unrelated to the needs of the individual whom you now class as having “life unworthy of living”, a “useless eater”, served by casual and unsupervised elimination of the inconvenient, expensive, annoying or difficult. What, indeed, could possibly go wrong? Late state eugenics (old people) becomes earlier stage eugenics, becomes very early eugenics, becomes generalized eugenics. Again, what could possibly go wrong?

Sentimentalist that I am, I gotta admit, it kinda seems to me that asking the victim patient (my dad), who, in this case was entirely lucid and mentally competent, might have been a cool thing to do, but no one in charge thought that was necessary.

Oh, because Renata had signed forms using my name after my father’s death, I was never able to secure a copy of his medical records, making legal action impossible. But, hey, what could go wrong, after all. Doctors know best, right? They don’t make mistakes, after all. They’re doctors!

Back to MAID in Canada.

The good ol’ Canadian gumm’int cares so deeply about Canadians, setting up kindly protection for those who might be misguided enough to think that problems should be solved, not terminated (along with the people who are having the problems — after all, when the people are dead, so are the problems!)
Safeguards are so important. It’s not like it was back in the bad old days of 2016 when the State would not kill you without what somebody thought was a good reason to kill you, like, for instance, a terminal condition that meant you were going to die soon, but you would be suffering a lot before you did it. Back in the MAID-le Ages, avoiding suffering when facing certain death was your only ticket on the Death Train.

Times have certainly changed now that we have MMM: MAID For Malthusian Management.

Because, Lookee!

In 2021 things got much more MAID-friendly and just having a mental illness that made you sad or depressed was enough to be MAID dead! An official website tells us:

“Eligibility

To be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all the following criteria. You must:

• be eligible for health services funded by a province or territory, or the federal government
  • You may also be eligible if you meet your province or territory’s minimum period of residence or waiting period.
• be at least 18 years old and mentally competent
  • This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself.
• have a grievous and irremediable medical condition
• make a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying
  • The request cannot be the result of outside pressure or influence.
• give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying

Generally, visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying.”1 and helpfully clarifies a “grievous and irremediable medical condition thusly,

“Grievous and irremediable medical condition

To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

• have a serious illness, disease or disability
• be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
• experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable

You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.”2 [Emphasis added — REL]

If you are miserable and want out of your life with “ONLY” a mental illness as a reason, you will have to go along living and suffering for a while longer. At least to get State assistance in checking out, you have to hold on until March 27, 2027 before the State will knock you off. BUT, if you can conjure or work up a medical condition along with your wish to end your life for mental health reasons, you are in luck! With that little addendum, you qualify for sweet, swift and supportive Medical Assistance in Dying since, “If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible for medical assistance in dying.”3
Of course, to make sure that your particular needs are being taken into account, not our need to get rid of as many people as possible (anyone for as spot of depopulation this evening, folks?), we do make sure that, “Eligibility is always assessed on an individual basis and takes all relevant circumstances into account. However, you must meet all the criteria to be eligible.”4

Goodness, gracious me! We certainly would not want to execute, er, euthanize, anyone who did not meet ALL the criteria, now would we! There are, after all, rules about this sort of thing. You know: the safeguards.

In fact, there is a whole free, subsidized, Canadian government curriculum on how to make sure that your doctors and nurse practitioners know how to turn you from a patient into a corpse. Question: is there a financial or other bonus structure for killing your patients? If anyone has accurate information to answer that question, please reach out to me at releyes3@gmail.com to share the information and the source with me.

What we are seeing, as I wrote in the “NUTRICIDE: The Killing Fields of Codex Alimentarius”5

is the

“… modern incarnation of the “Eugenicists” belief in the moral and economic imperative which makes it incumbent and urgently correct for those who control society to protect and perfect it from depredation and defilement by “them” for the benefit of the rightful masters of monetary and moral gold: “us” whatever it may cost “them”.

The social “sterilization” slope is steep and well lubricated with moral self-justification driven by self-interest and worse. [It begins] with those with “physical disabilities” and [extends] to those with “social disabilities”, widening to those with “genetic disabilities” and culminating finally with those with “political disabilities.

“While examining how the Nazis treated people with disabilities it is wise to review the macropolitical and social forces that still impact our view of the disabled today.” notes Professor Mark Mostert of Regent University in his informative essay, “Useless Eaters”,6 Dr. Mostert reminds us that when considering our response to the vulnerable in our society, it is wise to remain aware of “the role of science, the power of ideas, the convergence of macrosocial convictions, the complicity of the medical profession, and the role of propaganda”7 He points out that what made the idea of eugenics dangerous did not lie in the concept itself but the way in which it was co-opted to drive social actions “with scant regard for decency and compassion”.8
Codex [Alimentarius]9 has co-opted science to drive social actions with the same scant regard for decency and compassion and now presents a threat as great to the global community as the Nazi killing machine presented to Europe. In our global society, Fritz ter Meer’s10 world view, embodied so well in Codex Alimentarius and its deadly policies, extends to global urban slums and low economic level villages rendering their inhabitants useless and therefore ripe for “disinfection”. Those who resisted were silenced in the tidal wave of demand for conformity of all people, everywhere in all ways. Those who resist Codex are silenced in the same tidal wave of demand for conformity of all food, everywhere in all ways. In a weird historical twist, Nazi inspired genocide has gone from being based on what you are to what you eat. The result of Codex Alimentarius is much the same without the need to institute expensive and resource-consuming Killing Centers or Death Camps. Poison the food in village markets and city supermarkets and they become your death camps. Think about how much money you save and how much blame you escape!

German “social sanitation” began with a definition of who was useful to society and who was not. Those with obvious disabilities were the first class of ‘useless eaters.’ Next came people with “economic and social disabilities” and then people with “political and ethnic disabilities”. Slipping from lack of economic productivity to lack of acceptable behavior to lack of social and political conformity to lack of genetic conformity, the slope was steep and easy to slide down. “Sanitizing” and “disinfecting” society becomes a responsible act to protect it until the unworthy, those not worth saving, are purged and, so it is claimed, their demise “strengthens” the survivors.

Make no mistake: despite its claims to be scientific and benign, Codex [and the entire Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals {SDGs}, of which Codex is a central part -REL] is a death machine coming out of a long tradition which justifies the death of those of us who are “Useless Eaters”, a term popularized in Germany by Professors Karl Binding and Alfred Hotch in their 1920 essay, “Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life”. In this widely read – and debated – essay, the academics argued that the right to be alive was earned, not conferred, and that killing people with disabilities, or others whom they determined were unworthy to live, was justified. The right to live was earned, they argued, by being a useful economic contributor to society. Absent that ability, one becomes a “useless eater” who, because they are not needed, may be disposed of. Included in the class of “useless eaters” under the Nazis were the disabled and the mentally ill, the vagrant and the unemployable. This world view, in which ter Meer11 vigorously participated, would lay the foundation for Codex [and the entire Agenda 2030 SDG] sub text: survivors collaborate with the major international corporate sectors (Big Pharma, Big Agribiz, Big Biotechnica, Big Chema and Big Medica) to centralize distribution, standardization, trade and accumulate wealth through illness. Simultaneously, remove those who were not useful to serve the needs of the new rulers who would preside over the new economy: one without consumers, only masters and their servitors.

Under the Nazi system, the one which ter Meer served so successfully and ardently championed, the economic worth of an individual determined his social standing and his right to the resources available. People of lower economic worth could be deprived of support or resources without social guilt: hundreds of thousands of vulnerable and disabled Germans were permitted to die of inadequate sanitation, medication, food, shelter and clothing because they were useless eaters and their loss strengthened the State. This valuation of human life by economic markers was a key intellectual piece in the social acceptance of genocide. As institutional care for the indigent, insane and disabled vanished, these vulnerable populations were seen as a danger to social morals and decency. As in the US, dysfunctional behavior was increasingly viewed as a legal offense and the disabled entered the criminal system by virtue of their dysfunctional behavior. The cost of their incarceration was then seen as a drain on the economy and pressure for their elimination mounted while economic disability, physical disability and criminality became fused in the public mind.

In fact, by the late 1930’s in Germany there was open dialogue about the desirability of killing inmates of asylums. Useless eaters all, there was no reason that society should not be served by killing them and giving the resources that they would consume to the worthy. Social Darwinism, whose most extreme version is eugenics, holds that all behavior is genetic, the strongest, richest, whitest, blondest, most powerful are the most genetically desirable and that incarceration, sterilization or death would rid the population of undesirable genes, thus making it stronger and more successful. In ter Meer’s world, the poor were more likely to commit social offenses so they were the least worthy of resources to consume. If they were really worthy of maintaining life, they would be making a significant contribution to society. Since they were not, and were only useless eaters, they could – and should – be disposed of for the good of the remaining members of society, those worthy of life.

“Eugenics”, coined by Francis Galton in 1881, gained its most influential early proponent in Charles Davenport, an American who defined the term as “the science [sic] of the improvement of the human race by better breeding.” The concept was popular with Americans and found a place in the United States when Cary Buck, whose mother was “feebleminded”, gave birth to an illegitimate “feebleminded” child in 1927. Politicians jumped on the issue and many states passed laws requiring compulsory sterilization of the mentally defective. Useless eaters, they should not be permitted to procreate.

In the Germany of the Nazis, the inferiors of the world would be eliminated through “Positive Eugenics” or high birth rates by desirable people and “Negative Eugenics”, the death of undesirable people who had neither genetic nor economic worth and, because these factors were determined by genetics, would never develop any desirable characteristics, traits or contributions to society. IG Farben’s Germany had 220 Health Courts which determined who would be involuntarily sterilized before the ter Meer’s death camps went into full swing. It is interesting to note that the linguistic confusion and obfuscation caused by the merger of “health” with “death” has strong echoes in our own society in which “healthcare” is actually, for most people, “illness care”. Very much in the spirit of the current Administration’s12 new Military Tribunals for American citizens (which were recently decried by the American Bar Association), in which anyone who is thought to be a “suspected terrorist” (including, according to Arizona branch of the FBI, a person who “defends the US Constitution”) may be held without legal representation, charges or a trial for an indefinite period, Germany’s “Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals” stipulated that people who qualified could be held in indeterminate “protective custody”. Further, they could be surgically castrated and committed to asylums at the whim of the Health Court. Hitler reasoned that, although it was his intent to murder the “undesirable”, only the heat of war would ready the German public, conditioned by suitable propaganda, to accept that course of “cleansing” action. Entire classes of people, defined by biological markers like skin color, social markers like opposing political views or economic markers like poverty could be easily classed as low value, high threat populations and could be dispensed with. Racial, ethnic, social and economic profiling run amok coupled with the concept of Social Darwinism and the waste engendered by useless eaters leads to only one conclusion: get rid of THEM for the safety and good of US.

1939 was the year in which Germans were officially informed that it was their duty to be healthy. It was also the year that the German Children’s Killing Program was launched to officiate over the extermination of all children with disabilities or who were otherwise not wanted. Pediatric useless eaters, too, were disposable. Reporting directly to Hitler under the scientific-sounding “Committee for the Scientific Treatment of Severe, Genetically Diseased Illness”, the Children’s Killing Program produced a document on August 18, 1939 which called for the registration of all children up to the age of 3 with any kind of disability. Across Germany, midwives were paid a bounty for every child registered. Reports went to 3 German doctors who marked the children’s records either for survival (a minus sign), termination at a later time or, if their records were marked with a plus sign, for what was variously called “treatment”, “disinfection”, “cleaning”, “therapy” or “selection”.

Housed in 28 “killing centers”, medical staff supervised and participated actively in the removal of tiny useless eaters. Starvation (not preferred as it took too long), exposure to the cold German winters, chemical agents or lethal injections to the heart were, in ter Meer’s Germany, perfectly acceptable actions to get rid of socially useless people with the help and participation of the medial world. The source of the chemicals for the lethal injections? IG Farben.

In 1939, Hitler personally authorized “Aktion T4”, a program to kill all “adult undesirables”. Because shooting them in the back of the head (4000 Poles), tying them together and blowing them up with dynamite and mass train wrecks were inefficient and unsavory, mass carbon monoxide poisoning became the favored means of extermination. It was noted by the German authorities that the murder of so many inmates and patients at such close range exacted too heavy a toll from their killers so less intimate means of killing larger numbers of people were needed. IG Farben was happy to oblige.

Carbon monoxide was settled on as the answer and six large “Killing Centers” were set up. The engines that produced the carbon monoxide were produced by I G Farben. So were the hoses and showerheads which carried the deadly gas to the useless eaters. Once dead, their bodies were plundered for gold teeth and used for autopsies and “practice cadavers” for German surgeons in training. After cremation in the IG Farben-produced crematoria, non-specific ashes were sent to grieving families at the expense of the victim’s kin if they requested them in urns made by IG Farben.

Favorite alleged causes of death were “breathing problems”, stroke, meningitis and pneumonia.

By 1941, children up to 17 were exterminated in the Children’s Killing Program (although Jewish children were excluded since they did not deserve a “merciful” death) and between 70,000 and 80,000 Germans and Eastern European useless eaters were allowed to die in this way by personnel chosen specifically for their brutality and devotion to the Nazi ideals. Physicians, however, remained in charge since, according to one of the top officials of the program, Viktor Brcek, “The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor.” On the occasion of the 10,000th victim of the Killing Center at Hagdamar, a festive party ‘was held in the IG Farben-built crematorium where the staff celebrated with beer, dancing to a polka band and a mock burial of the latest victim shrouded in a swastika banner.

During the Killing Center warm up period for the death camps to come, the “inhalation therapy” rooms into which the naked victims of impending “disinfection” were herded were not satisfactory since the victims “resisted the need for this therapy”. This led the Nazi exterminators to change the guise of the rooms: perforated tubes for the introduction of carbon monoxide were replaced with shower heads which was both more familiar and more acceptable to those about to be “sanitized”. Under the conceptual system of ter Meer and the other exterminators of useless eaters, their economic non-productivity and economic drain on the resources of society were sufficient reason to disinfect society of them.

A German report noted that this human sanitation had saved the government 885,439,980 Reich Marks (RMs):

• 13,490,440 RMs on meat and sausage
• 708,350 on jam
• 1,054,080 on cheese
• 20,857,026 on bread13

The Aktion T4 program came to an end in 1941 when Roman Catholic Bishop Clemens von Galen preached a fiery sermon denouncing the program. His August 3 sermon was widely circulated in Germany. Catalyzing growing German unease because of an emerging penetration of the lies surrounding their loved one’s death and the outrage of their kin, the Nazi regime feared popular and international backlash (especially the Swiss-based Red Cross) so Aktion T4 was shut down.

The killing, however, continued because useless eaters still drained the coffers of the state and the sensibilities of the public. The responsibility for their extermination was transferred to more than 100 hospitals where lethal injections, starvation and exposure were the most favored means of extermination. IG Farben made Germany’s drugs and chemicals, lethal and otherwise.

When the program was shut down, particularly brutal and efficient staff members of the Killing Centers were rewarded with appointments as the first Commandants of the death camps of Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka.14

Does “the needle belong in the hand of the doctor” when the needle is a tool of death? I am a physician. I cannot think of many times or ways in which extreme physical suffering cannot be modulated, mediated or mitigated with appropriate medical or surgical techniques to ease the suffering of a dying patient. So, the need for compassionate murder, or euthanasia, is, in my experience, extremely rare. Yes, it does happen. But the wholesale slaughter of the useless eaters of convenience of this moment down the same slippery geno-slide we have gone down before is not serving us. It is serving those who would use Malthusian Management to manage us out of existence.

In other words, we are looking at UN programs and intentions.

No.

We cannot fix this by stopping the programs alone. We must stop the monsters who create the programs to destroy us.

Visit PreventGenocide2030.org and take the simple actions there to let your Members of Congress know that we want, expect and demand that they get us out of the United Nations.

The new Republican-Controlled Congress under a President who very much wants adulation as a populist president gives us a remarkable chance to get out of the United Nations Death Machine. Now would be a very good time to let the people at the decision-making points of action and power know what we demand. Out. Now. That’s where we start.

Please share this post. Please let people know that it is important enough for them to take the time to read it and share it.
And please suggest that they sign up for the DrRimaTruthReport.Substack.com publication.

Thank you.

Health Freedom Newsletter Info
Tune In To Our Podcasts:
Dr Rima Truth Reports: Tuesday, 6-8 PM Eastern
Catalytic Conversations: Saturday, 5-7 PM Eastern Rumble.com/user/PeopleForPeople2022