People are seeking euthanasia because they’re 'isolated', afraid of being homeless.

Infowars - com

<p>The recent report highlighting cases where individuals sought euthanasia due to social reasons such as isolation and fears of homelessness has sparked concern. The article from the Frederick News-Post discusses findings from Ontario’s chief coroner, which indicate that some people opted for euthanasia not solely due to medical reasons but also because of unmet social needs.</p>
<p>The claim that people are seeking euthanasia because they are isolated or afraid of being homeless is partially true. The report mentions specific cases, such as a man in his 40s with a bowel disease and a history of mental illness and substance abuse, and a woman in her 50s suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and PTSD. Both individuals were socially isolated and sought euthanasia partly due to these social factors.</p>
<p>However, it is crucial to understand the broader context. Euthanasia laws in Canada require a medical reason, such as a terminal illness or unmanageable pain. The cases mentioned in the report are exceptions rather than the norm. The majority of euthanasia cases still adhere to the medical criteria set by the law.</p>
<p>The report's findings underscore the complex interplay between medical and social factors in end-of-life decisions. Social isolation and lack of support can exacerbate existing medical conditions, leading some individuals to feel that euthanasia is their only option. This highlights the need for comprehensive care that addresses both medical and social needs.</p>
<p>Research has shown that social support and access to adequate care can significantly impact end-of-life decisions. A study by <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/new-report-shows-people-are-seeking-euthanasia-because-theyre-isolated-afraid-of-being-homeless">Ganzini et al.</a> &nbsp;found that patients who receive palliative care are less likely to request assisted suicide. Another study by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673696916219/pdf?md5=ab35a9fe27f80f37b67c1a4377700c92&amp;pid=1-s2.0-S0140673696916219-main.pdf">Emanuel et al.</a> &nbsp;emphasizes the importance of social support in end-of-life care.</p>
<p>The article also raises ethical concerns about the commodification of human beings and the importance of loving care. The example of the author's uncle, who lovingly cared for his wife with dementia, illustrates the power of compassionate care. This kind of support can make a significant difference in the lives of those who are sick or suffering.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while there are cases where individuals seek euthanasia due to social reasons like isolation and fear of homelessness, these are not the primary reasons for most euthanasia cases. The report highlights the need for a more holistic approach to end-of-life care that addresses both medical and social needs. Ensuring that individuals have access to comprehensive support can help reduce the desire for assisted suicide.</p>

Claim Review: People Seeking Euthanasia Due to Isolation and Fear of Homelessness

<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

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

<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Disability Classifications:</strong> 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.</p>
<p><strong>Euthanasia Practices:</strong> 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.</p>
<p><strong>Misinterpretation of Euthanasia:</strong> 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.</p>
<p><strong>Scientific Evidence:</strong> 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.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> 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.</p>

Claim Review: Governments Preparing for Mass Euthanasia Programs

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion and that the money will be coming from the public has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis and context to help readers understand the truth behind it.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim states that the World Health Organisation (WHO), GAVI, the International Development Association (IDA), and the Pandemic Fund are seeking to raise a total of $123 billion. The money is expected to come from various sources, including national governments and private funders, ultimately impacting taxpayers.</p>
<h2>Breakdown of the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim is based on the following breakdown:</p>
<ul>
  <li>WHO wants to raise $11.1 billion.</li>
  <li>GAVI seeks $11.9 billion.</li>
  <li>IDA aims to raise $100 billion.</li>
  <li>The Pandemic Fund wants $2 billion.</li>
</ul>
<p>These figures add up to $123 billion.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we need to consider the sources of funding and the transparency of these organizations.</p>
<h3>World Health Organisation (WHO)</h3>
<p>WHO is seeking $11.1 billion for its work over the next four years. According to Devex, WHO expects $4 billion in membership dues, leaving $7.1 billion to be fundraised from governments and the private sector. WHO's funding sources include national governments, private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and other non-state actors.</p>
<p>WHO's financial transparency has been a concern. The most recent audited financial statements published relate to the year ended December 2021. This lack of up-to-date financial reporting raises questions about accountability and transparency.</p>
<h3>GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance</h3>
<p>GAVI is asking for $9 billion in new pledges for the period 2026-2030, out of a total need of $11.9 billion. GAVI's funding comes from a mix of public and private sources, with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation being a significant contributor.</p>
<p>GAVI's impact on global vaccine distribution is substantial, but its financial operations and profit margins are not fully transparent. The organization's spending on fundraising and management expenses raises questions about its efficiency and accountability.</p>
<h3>International Development Association (IDA)</h3>
<p>IDA hopes to raise $100 billion through a new cycle of funding. IDA's funds are primarily used for poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation. The organization's strategic directions for the latest funding round emphasize resilience, human capital, and climate adaptation.</p>
<p>IDA's funding comes from contributions from member countries, with top funders including Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The organization's focus on global agendas under the auspices of poverty alleviation raises concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of its spending.</p>
<h3>The Pandemic Fund</h3>
<p>The Pandemic Fund wants to raise $2 billion for its work. The fund is a World Bank partnership with a consortium of donor countries, foundations, and civil society organizations. Its founding financial contributors include various countries and private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<p>The Pandemic Fund's focus on strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response is crucial, but the lack of transparency in its financial operations and the involvement of private foundations raise questions about accountability and the potential for conflicts of interest.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations are seeking $123 billion for pandemic-vaccine schemes is partially true. However, the claim lacks context and transparency regarding the sources of funding and the specific uses of the money. The involvement of private foundations and the lack of up-to-date financial reporting by some organizations raise concerns about accountability and potential conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>While it is true that the money will ultimately come from taxpayers, the claim exaggerates the direct impact on individual taxpayers. The funding for these organizations comes from a mix of public and private sources, and the specific allocation of funds is not fully disclosed.</p>
<p>It is essential for these organizations to provide more transparency and accountability in their financial operations to build public trust and ensure that the money is used effectively and efficiently.</p>
<p>For further reading on the involvement of private foundations in global health, see the following study:</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2014_3_323">The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN (1939–1946)</a> by Ludovic Tournès, published in the Journal of Modern European History.</p>

Claim Review: Four Organizations Seeking $123 Billion for Pandemic-Vaccine Industry

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: "People are seeking euthanasia because they’re 'isolated', afraid of being homeless." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: