"Informed assent" (to a DNR) - what Orwellian abomination is this?
“Informed assent” is a new one on me. Have a look at the latest from
:
In that article, she cites this JAMA paper. In the paper, there’s a flowchart, containing this element:
Note the wording:
“is longevity the patient’s primary value ABOVE ALL ELSE, including quality of life?”
This looks like deliberate framing:
It’s worded as if “only a fool / weird person” would say “yes”.
To say “yes”, some serious discussion with someone who had full mental capacity would be required, yet this is meant to apply to people with whom such discussion is not possible.
Who knows, if they say “yes” maybe they could - Soviet-style - be regarded as not rational or sane, so that their expressed desire can be overridden without qualms, because obviously everyone can see that they really meant “no”.
I can’t help but find a common modality of thought in both this and the current desperation by my own government - in the UK - to push through a bill to legalize “assisted dying”, regarding which, during the process of its scrutiny by Parliament many previously promised safeguards against coercion seem to have been whittled away.
False binary alert...
DNR should be voluntary, opt in, not opt out.
These morons are always conniving to get what they want instead of what is consent.
The term soul less applies to this logic. Human robots copying robotic "commands" instead of thinking for themselves.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/alphabet-vs-the-goddess
Hopefully we will eventually stop using toxic crap like chemo and treat cancer with safer and better drugs.
https://fenbendazole.substack.com/