Governments worldwide are preparing for mass euthanasiaprograms targeting the frail, disabled, and other groups considered 'useless,' with the UK government classifying various conditions as disabilities, making them potential candidates for euthanasia.

The Expose News - com

The article from The Expose claims that governments worldwide, including the UK, are preparing for mass euthanasia programs targeting the frail, disabled, and other groups considered 'useless.' The article lists various conditions classified as disabilities in the UK, suggesting that these individuals are potential candidates for euthanasia. However, a thorough examination of the claims reveals several inaccuracies and misinterpretations.
Disability Classifications: The article lists conditions such as anxiety, depression, and even wearing glasses as classifications for disability. While it is true that mental health conditions like anxiety and depression can be considered disabilities under certain circumstances, the claim that wearing glasses qualifies as a disability is misleading. Disability classifications are designed to provide support and accommodations, not to target individuals for euthanasia.
Euthanasia Practices: The article suggests that euthanasia is being promoted to reduce the world population to 500 million. However, euthanasia practices vary widely across countries and are typically governed by strict legal frameworks. In countries where euthanasia is legal, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, it is only permitted under specific conditions and with the explicit consent of the patient. There is no evidence to support the claim that governments are using euthanasia as a means of population control.
Misinterpretation of Euthanasia: The article conflates euthanasia with the misuse of 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. While there have been concerns about the inappropriate use of DNR orders, this is distinct from euthanasia, which involves the intentional ending of a patient's life at their request. The misuse of DNR orders is a separate issue that has been addressed by medical authorities and is not indicative of a broader euthanasia agenda.
Scientific Evidence: The claims made in the article are not supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. For example, a study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327484/">Journal of Medical Ethics</a> discusses the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia but does not support the notion of mass euthanasia programs targeting specific groups.
Conclusion: The claim that governments are preparing for mass euthanasia programs targeting the frail, disabled, and other groups is largely unfounded. The article misinterprets disability classifications and euthanasia practices, and it lacks credible evidence to support its claims. While there are legitimate concerns about the misuse of DNR orders and the ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia, these issues are distinct from the claims made in the article.

Claim Review: Governments Preparing for Mass Euthanasia Programs

The claim that the UK government used Midazolam to prematurely end the lives of thousands of elderly people and falsely reported them as COVID-19 deaths has been circulating widely. This claim is based on several pieces of information, including the purchase of a large quantity of Midazolam, the use of Midazolam in care homes, and the correlation between Midazolam prescriptions and COVID-19 deaths.
Midazolam is a sedative drug commonly used in palliative care and for sedation before medical procedures. It is also associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation in noncritical care settings. The claim suggests that the UK government purchased a two-year supply of Midazolam in March 2020 and that this drug was used to prematurely end the lives of elderly people in care homes, with their deaths being falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths.
However, there are several issues with this claim. Firstly, while it is true that the UK government purchased a large quantity of Midazolam in March 2020, this was done as part of national efforts to respond to the coronavirus outbreak and to reduce the likelihood of future shortages. The purchase of Midazolam was not unique to the UK, and many other countries also increased their stocks of sedatives and other drugs in response to the pandemic.
Secondly, while there was an increase in the number of prescriptions for Midazolam in April 2020, this does not necessarily mean that the drug was used to prematurely end the lives of elderly people. Midazolam is a commonly used drug in palliative care, and the increase in prescriptions may have been due to the increase in the number of people requiring end-of-life care during the pandemic.
Thirdly, the claim that the deaths of elderly people were falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths is not supported by any concrete evidence. While it is true that there were a large number of excess deaths in care homes during the pandemic, this does not necessarily mean that these deaths were caused by Midazolam or that they were falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths.
In conclusion, while there are some concerning correlations between the use of Midazolam and COVID-19 deaths, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that the UK government used Midazolam to prematurely end the lives of thousands of elderly people and falsely reported them as COVID-19 deaths. This claim is largely unfounded and should be treated with caution.

Claim Review: Midazolam and COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

The claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is a serious allegation that warrants careful examination. The article from The Exposé suggests that euthanasia is not just for the terminally ill but also targets the depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed. This claim is alarming and deserves a thorough review.
Firstly, it is important to understand the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying, is a highly regulated practice in countries where it is legal. For instance, in the Netherlands, one of the first countries to legalize euthanasia, strict criteria must be met, including the patient's voluntary and well-considered request, unbearable suffering, and the absence of reasonable alternatives. Similar regulations exist in other countries like Belgium and Canada.
The claim that euthanasia is being used to save money and target vulnerable populations is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. A study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755175/">Journal of Medical Ethics</a> found that the primary motivations for legalizing euthanasia are compassion and respect for patient autonomy, not cost-saving measures. The study also noted that the majority of patients who request euthanasia do so because of unbearable suffering, not financial reasons.
Furthermore, the assertion that people are being legally killed because they are depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed is misleading. While it is true that mental health conditions can be a factor in euthanasia requests, these cases are subject to rigorous evaluation. For example, in Belgium, a psychiatric evaluation is required for patients with mental health conditions. The goal is to ensure that the request for euthanasia is not a result of a treatable mental illness.
The claim also suggests that euthanasia is not painless, peaceful, or dignified. This is a subjective assessment that varies widely among individuals. However, medical professionals strive to ensure that the process is as comfortable as possible for the patient. The use of sedatives and other medications is common to minimize discomfort.
It is crucial to address the ethical concerns surrounding euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath, which many doctors take, includes a pledge to do no harm. This oath is often interpreted as a prohibition against assisting in suicide. However, the ethical landscape is evolving, and many medical professionals argue that assisting in a dignified death can be a compassionate act in certain circumstances.
In conclusion, the claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is largely unfounded. While there are legitimate concerns about the ethical implications of euthanasia, the claim oversimplifies a complex issue. It is important to engage in open and informed discussions about euthanasia, considering both the benefits and the potential risks.

Claim Review: Euthanasia is Being Introduced to Save Money and Kill People

<h2>Introduction</h2>
The claim that euthanasia is all about the money has been circulating, suggesting that the primary motivation behind legalizing euthanasia is financial gain rather than compassion or ethical considerations. This article aims to review this claim and provide a thorough analysis based on available evidence.
<h2>Understanding Euthanasia</h2>
Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying, is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is a complex and controversial topic that involves ethical, legal, and medical considerations. The debate around euthanasia often centers on the balance between individual autonomy and the sanctity of life.
<h2>The Financial Argument</h2>
The claim that euthanasia is all about the money suggests that governments and healthcare systems are promoting euthanasia to save costs associated with end-of-life care and pensions. While it is true that end-of-life care can be expensive, the primary motivations for legalizing euthanasia are typically rooted in ethical and humanitarian concerns.
A study published in the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1800596">New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the cost savings from euthanasia are minimal compared to the overall healthcare budget. The study concluded that the primary drivers for legalizing euthanasia are patient autonomy, dignity, and the relief of suffering.
<h2>Ethical and Humanitarian Considerations</h2>
The ethical arguments for euthanasia focus on the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice to end their life in the face of unbearable suffering. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it provides a compassionate option for those who are terminally ill and wish to avoid prolonged pain and distress.
A report by the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care">World Health Organization</a> highlights the importance of palliative care in providing comfort and support to patients and their families. However, the report also acknowledges that in some cases, palliative care may not be sufficient to alleviate all suffering, and euthanasia may be considered as a last resort.
<h2>Counterarguments</h2>
Opponents of euthanasia argue that legalizing assisted dying could lead to a slippery slope, where vulnerable groups such as the elderly, disabled, or mentally ill may feel pressured to choose euthanasia due to financial or social pressures. They also raise concerns about the potential for abuse and the erosion of the sanctity of life.
A study published in the <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1682">British Medical Journal</a> found that in countries where euthanasia is legal, there have been instances of vulnerable individuals feeling pressured to choose assisted dying due to financial or social factors. However, the study also noted that robust safeguards and regulations can help mitigate these risks.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
The claim that euthanasia is all about the money is largely unsupported by credible evidence. While cost savings may be a secondary benefit, the primary motivations for legalizing euthanasia are ethical and humanitarian concerns. The debate around euthanasia is complex and multifaceted, and it is important to consider all aspects, including the potential risks and benefits, when evaluating this controversial topic.

Claim Review: Euthanasia is All About the Money

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Governments worldwide are preparing for mass euthanasiaprograms targeting the frail, disabled, and other groups considered 'useless,' with the UK government classifying various conditions as disabilities, making them potential candidates for euthanasia." is False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: