The Net Zero Death Cult
The inhumanity of the medical profession
As my last post - The Medical Prpfession is a Cesspool of Fraud, Greed, Corruption and Bad Science - received a very postive response, I thought I would re-publish my very first article I posted on this forum in Septemeber 2023 as it will be new to most of my readers.
It highlights the sickness at the heart of a medical industry that wants to kill of the sick and elderly to save money and save the planet. It is now more relevant than ever in the U.K. as the government has recently passed the Assisted Dying bill making it easier for doctors to kill off thier patients. These people are psychopaths.
The Net Zero Death Cult
The climate change cult is insidious no matter what government departments or institutions it infiltrates. However, it is at its most dangerous when those people it infects are members of the medical community. When their apocalyptic hysteria starts impacting on their decisions regarding patient care, urgent action needs to be taken.
The Medical Climate Cultists Who Believe Death is Healthy
An extremely disturbing document was published in the Lancet recently, called, ‘The Report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death: bringing death back to life’(1). It was written by numerous medical professionals in the palliative care sector. It is nothing less than a propaganda piece promoting the idea that people who are suffering from possible life-shortening illness should not be given any potential life -saving treatments in hospital but instead, to help with reducing our carbon footprint, should be allowed to die and actually encouraged to do so.
In the introduction the authors make their feelings clear when they use the most Orwellian phrase imaginable by saying, “the commission believes it is healthy to die.”
They continue by making it obvious that their ‘climate crisis’ zeal is the driving force behind this push to restrict end-of-life medical treatment -
“The Commission believes that the drive to fend off death and pursue a dramatic extension in length of life also arises from a failure to recognise that we are part of nature; and as financial cost and carbon consumption are closely related to expensive care, treatment at the end of life will be an important contribution to the carbon footprint of health care.”
Further on the document “explores in more depth the concept of the value of death as a gift.” The reason they promote the idea that death has a value is because they are advocates of depopulation and believe people need to die -
“The simplest proposition of the value of death is that “without death every birth would be a tragedy”, and in a very crowded world we are the edge of such a tragedy. In the report we explore the many values of death.”
Quoting from a novel, they even espouse the idea that, to avert the climate crisis, the best thing to do as a human is to die -
“If we are to survive the climate crisis then almost everything will have to change, including health care, end-of-life care, and how we dispose of the dead. In the widely acclaimed novel Overstory, a eulogy to trees and nature, a leading environmentalist asks the audience at a conference what they can best do to counter climate change and environmental destruction: her answer is, to die.”
They sum up their total subservience to the climate change creed when they say -
“Everything, and especially death, must be thought of in the context of the climate crisis.”
Now its Racist to Want to Live Longer
As is common with a lot of propaganda produced by the climate change cult, the document is also replete with ludicrous extreme left-wing ideology. They use woke nonsense in a crass attempt to convince the readers that expecting to be treated in hospital with life-prolonging drugs if one is potentially facing a fatal illness, is really a paradigm founded in racism. Their argument is that only a rich Westerner can afford proper health care and therefore it is an example of a colonialist mindset and to achieve equity we should abandon this idea and die willingly, without life-extending medical intervention, like poor people in less developed countries -
“The white man's image of death has spread with medical civilisation and has been a major force in colonialisation.” The growing movement to decolonise global health “by grounding it in a health justice framework that acknowledges how colonialism, racism, sexism, capitalism and other harmful ‘-isms’ pose the largest threat to health equity”
“This a response to this historical background, as is the movement to decolonise death studies, death practices, and end-of-life care.”
The authors of this study are supposed to be medical professionals, not social justice activists, yet their left-wing bias is blatantly obvious throughout. Should they really be in charge of making life and death decisions if they can’t be objective?
Hypocrisy of the Covid Cult Who Are Now the Climate Crisis Cult
Throughout the report they state how important it is to die at home surrounded by friends and family rather than in a hospital bed. This may be true but it is not out of compassion that they say this but out of their desire to save money and save the planet by reducing the carbon footprint of end-of-life medication. The same medical profession that ardently supported the closure of hospitals to relatives of dying patients during covid, ensuring they would suffer the anguish of dying alone, now pretend to be advocates for having loved ones at the dying patient’s bedside. Their hypocrisy is breath-taking.
The authors also have the temerity to imbue the document with references to religious practices and spirituality in an attempt to convince the reader that death is nothing to fear but actually a good thing as many people believe there is an afterlife. They pretend that they are only producing this sick report because they are concerned that by medicalising death, we are not having our spiritual and emotional needs met when we are approaching the end of life. If this was coming from the head of a religious institution, then it may be understandable, but this is from a medical establishment who vehemently adhere to the reductionist view that our bodies are mere machines of flesh and bone.
When extoling the virtues of other religion’s treatment of the dying, the report cites the example of a religious practice that some Indian sects participate in as an alternative to patients being medicalised in hospitals -
“The desire to hasten death may be acceptable in some religions or cultures. Indian culture had a traditionally socially acceptable form of the voluntarily ending of life.”
“In principle this practice entails a person coming to the realisation that they have no responsibilities or desires left. With the consent of religious elders, the person enters a slow process of fasting, where they give up one item of food a time, so that hunger pangs are tolerable. Over a few weeks or months, the person dies, often amid chants.”
They then go on to say -
“The argument in favour of the practice is that it is based on a person finishing responsibilities in the world, coming to a state of no desires, and voluntarily accepting death as the inevitable culmination of life.”
Here the commission is implying that once you have supposedly nothing left to offer society, it is perfectly acceptable to be allowed to die.
Moreover, they don’t even object to the cruel method of death- slow starvation. One can only assume that the relatives of those patients that have starved to death in our own NHS hospitals would be outraged by this callousness (2).
Encouraging Patients to Die by Destroying Hope
The justification in supporting the above case would supposedly be that the patient has came to terms with dying and he has nothing left to live for. But is this truly the case? Perhaps the patient would like to try potentially life-extending medication but the carer in charge of the patient, after having succumbed to the sort of thinking encouraged by this report, influences the patient, making them believe they are no longer of any worth.
The document strongly suggests that this is what is actually happening.
“There is evidence that the will to live can keep people alive. It is highly likely that emotions, positive and negative, can influence a prognosis, but the tyranny of “positive thinking” can lead to ambivalence, guilt, and bad decisions.
The authors clearly state that positive thinking can lead to a better prognosis but that this ‘tyranny of positive thinking’ is a bad thing. Since when is being in a frame of mind that can help you live longer be a bad idea unless, of course, they want you dead?
After dismissing positive thinking as something negative they then go on to deride hope as well.
“Hope increases the likelihood that people will believe that their illness is less serious than objective data might support, allowing patients to hold onto a low possibility of a favourable outcome and disregard the much greater probability of an unfavourable outcome.”
“Clinicians may recommend treatments if there are any potential benefits, irrespective of costs. They may also recommend additional treatments because to do so is easier than trying to communicate the futility of additional interventions. Lastly, they may recommend additional treatments as a way for the patient to maintain hope, despite the clinical futility.”
“These phenomena can lead to overtreatment for individual patients at the end of life.”
The real reason these people see hope as a negative thing is because it instils a will to live in the patient. As they say, the will to live “is often more strongly influenced by existential factors such as losing hope, the feeling of being a burden, or the sense that life has no purpose or meaning.”
“A loss of the will to live correlates with a desire to hasten death and suicidal ideation.”
It would appear then that the authors of the report are encouraging patients to feel hopeless so they will feel suicidal and want to die sooner.
The paper argues that death has value. It is a pity they don’t seem to think that human life has any value. This is made clear when they say-
“We are embodied creatures who are ultimately no more important than lizards or potatoes.”
If these people who work in the field of palliative and end-of-life care are treating patients as if they have no more value to society than a vegetable, it is no wonder some of them may start to believe they are worthless and opt for an early death.
To emphasise just how obsessed they are with climate change and what little respect they have for human beings, the authors actually promote the idea of turning the bodies of the dead into fertiliser as it has less of a carbon footprint than cremation.
“While the dead consume no carbon, the disposal of bodies does.
About three quarters of people in Britain are cremated after death, releasing carbon into the air. Alkaline hydrolysis, in which the body is dissolved, has about a seventh of the carbon footprint of cremation, and the resulting fluid can be used as fertiliser.”
The NHS Chooses to ‘Save the Planet’ Rather Than Saving Lives.
Throughout the document, they try to justify not offering treatments to patients who are potentially dying by saying it isn’t cost effective and the money saved could be better spent on treating other patients –
“It is important to recognise that unless efforts are made to ensure the costs of treatment do not exceed the expected benefits, overtreatment at the end of life is likely. This imbalance means that resources are not available for other components of universal health care.”
However, this is totally disingenuous. Given the choice to spend vast sums of money on patient care, the NHS chose, instead, to spend it on pursuing the climate cult’s agenda of Net Zero. They are going to spend £492 million on changing all NHS light bulbs into LED ones (3). The latest figures I could find for operating on a patient that has suffered a heart attack is £3584 (4) and there are believed to be around 100,000 people hospitalised in the U.K. each year after suffering a cardiac arrest (5). The NHS could have opted to spend £358 million on potentially saving 100,000 lives and had £134 million left over, but it is such an acolyte of the climate cult that it elected to save energy instead.
Take the current outbreak of Streptococcus A infections spreading amongst children in the U.K. We are being told there is not enough penicillin to go around. The cost of a fourteen-day course of amoxicillin is £0.18 (6). There are approximately 12.7 million children under the age of 16 in the U.K. (7) Therefore, it would cost under £2.5 million to make sure there is enough antibiotics available to protect the entire childhood population. Now consider these jobs advertised recently in the NHS and their starting salaries (8)–Senior Net Zero Delivery Lead £65,664, Senior Net Zero manager £54,764, Net Zero Delivery Manger Lead £47,126, Net Zero Project Manager £40,057, Net Zero Advisor £40,057 totalling £247,668. Sir Simon Stevens said that there would be a Net Zero Lead in very NHS organisation and presumably, therefore, all the members of the Net Zero team below them. As there are 219 NHS Trusts (9) these jobs alone account for almost £55 million of NHS expenditure, 22 times that needed to purchase the antibiotics needed to save kids’ lives. Unfortunately, so endemic is the net-zero mania within our institutions, when it comes to ‘saving the planet’ versus saving a child’s life, the planet will always come first.
What if the diagnosis is Wrong?
The authors advocate for avoiding any potentially life – prolonging treatment as it is a waste of time. However, what if the patient wasn’t dying at all? Cases where patients are wrongly diagnosed with a terminal illness do occur. There are also a percentage of patients referred to hospices because they are diagnosed with terminal illnesses that actually survive (10).
There is case where a mother was diagnosed with COPD and her doctors thought that she was near death three times yet seven years later she is still alive. A man with brain cancer was given only months to live and survived for three and a half years. A woman who tried to commit suicide by jumping of a ferry because she was told she had a terminal illness was rescued and it subsequently transpired her diagnoses was wrong (11).
If we have learned one thing from the covid era, it is that medical experts are far from infallible.
The Promotion of Assisted Suicide
It will come as no surprise that the report is in favour of legalising Assisted Dying. One of its main authors, Richard Smith, is chair of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change (12) whose members include the Lancet, the BMJ, The BMA, The Royal College of GPS, The Royal College of Nursing, The Royal College of Surgeons, The Royal College of Physicians, The College of Paramedics, The Intensive Care Society and numerous other medical bodies. He wrote an article in the British Medical Journal which starts with the sentence -
“We should accept that humanity is dying and switch from cure to palliation—just as wise patients do at the end of their lives (13).”
The article is replete with climate change apocalyptic rhetoric saying humanity is near extinction, one of the reasons being overpopulation, so we better change our ways by stop trying to cure patients with potentially fatal illnesses and let them die.
Smith agrees with another palliative care physician who says he finds–
“Acceptance of our mortality, unimportance, ephemeral nature, infinite ignorance, and futility to be very liberating.”
Do we really want people who wield the power of life and death but who suffer from existential nihilism and think human life is unimportant and futile, treating anyone, let alone people who may be dying?
Smith was also Director of the UnitedHealth Chronic Disease Initiative (14) at the same time that Sir Simon Stevens was an executive director there (15). Sir Stevens was CEO of the NHS until last year and was the man who committed the NHS to Net Zero. Stevens went to college with, and is reportedly friends, with Rupert Read, the Climate zealot who is a member of Extinction Rebellion. The UK Health Alliance on Climate Change also list the group Doctors for Extinction Rebellion as people they work with. It is obvious that the climate cult agenda permeates every level of the medical profession.
It is the UK Health Alliance that are promoting the Lancet Report via three presentations (16). ‘A Good Surgical Death’ concludes by saying they need to ‘compare end of life surgery with conservative treatment powered on measures that matter to patients and that assesses the carbon footprint.’ We have already seen which of those criteria they value the most. In the presentation entitled ‘Death and the Planetary Crisis’ the doom-monger Richard Smith says, ‘we need to get end of life care to carbon net zero as must with everything,’ which clearly shows where his priorities lie. In ‘Reducing the Carbon Footprint in End-Of-Life Care,’ the patient is reduced to a mere equation. They state that value is equal to outcomes for patients and the population divided by the environmental, social and financial impacts - the triple bottom line as they call it. One would imagine that the patient’s wellbeing should be the bottom line but not anymore, now the financial and environmental cost of treatment is the priority. Note also, that the outcome for the population is given equal focus as the outcome for the individual patient so the decision to treat the patient must take into account the benefit to society at large.
Not content with promoting this sick agenda to the NHS and every medical organisation, the report also attempts to mobilise the public to get their governments to stop spending money on life-extending treatments.
“All countries with universal health care should find ways—perhaps through citizens' juries or other democratic mechanisms—to establish how much citizens are willing to spend on treatments intended to extend life for people with life-limiting disease, recognising that increased spending at the end of life will mean less spending elsewhere.”
It is also interesting to note that Matt Hancock, who was Health Secretary when the blanket DNR notices were issued to care home patients during covid, has just recently announced he is a supporter of assisted dying and is making a documentary on it, which will no doubt promote the idea to the public. When he was in his cabinet post he ordered a parliamentary review on the subject which the health committee has now launched (17).
Is Ideology Overriding Medical Ethics
The fact that the climate hysteria with its accompanying left- wing extremist ideology has infected the NHS could have other possible consequences for people with potentially life-shortening illnesses. What if the beliefs of the medical professional in charge of the patient determined what treatment they receive?
What criteria would they use to decide what patient, if any, is worthy of receiving treatment? Would their decision be based solely on medical grounds or their ideology? After all, it was only a few weeks ago a nurse stated on social media that Tory voters do not deserve to be resuscitated (18). Was this really only a joke?
As previously mentioned, lots of elderly and disabled people had Do Not Resuscitate Notices placed on them illegally and without consent during the covid care homes scandal (19). What would the relatives of those people think, after hearing a nurse make such a sick statement? Would they perhaps believe that life and death decisions are being made based more on ideology rather than medical criteria?
Most people who are diagnosed as being near the end of life are the older generation. It is exactly this demographic that the eco-zealots blame for the so-called climate crisis (20) (21). What if the doctor or nurse was so indoctrinated by the climate crisis propaganda that their decision to withdraw treatment was based on their radical views rather than purely medical reasons?
Back in April, an Extinction Rebellion activist called for the baby boomer generation to be euthanised (22). A sick joke maybe, but some of these people are so brainwashed they truly believe the world is about to end and blame certain members of the human race for the planet’s imminent demise. Recall that The UK Health Alliance for Climate Change, the ones promoting this disgusting agenda, acknowledges it works with Doctors for Extinction Rebellion.
With this report promoting allowing patients to die and comparing humans to lizards and potatoes is it really that far-fetched to think, at some point, some medical professional is going to take matters into their own hands?
This sick Lancet report highlights how deeply the Net Zero cult has infiltrated our health system. The obsession with reducing our carbon footprint is now such an integral part of the medical professionals’ mindset that they openly promote death as a healthy outcome. An immediate investigation should be launched into this report and the authors who compiled it. Can these people really be trusted with being in charge of patient care when they place such low value on human life?
(1) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02314-X/fulltext
(4) https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/how-much-costs-nhs-perform-14462706
(5) https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/contact-the-press-office/facts-and-figures
(6) https://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/amoxicillin-500mg-capsules-p11577.html
(8) https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/net_zero_the_latest_wave_of_public_sector_non_jobs
(9) https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-nhs
(10)https://omnicarehospice.com/discharge-hospice-patient-survives/
(11) https://euthanasiadebate.org.nz/resources/diagnosis-and-prognosis-are-often-wrong/
(12)
http://www.ukhealthalliance.org/
(14)http://www.ukhealthalliance.org/about/
(15)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevens
(16)http://www.ukhealthalliance.org/events/
(20)https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/climate-crisis-old-v-young-earth-mess
Unfortunately, the Canadian assisted dying scheme seems to be the blueprint other nations want to follow. It will start with the terminally ill and gradually move towards disabled people and anyone suffering depression to children who are simply finding life tough.
Once it is legal then what is to stop doctors refusing to offer durgs that could help with people's condition, forcing them to contemplate euthanasia.
During covid in the UK, it was common practice to put Do Not Resuscitate notices on patients without their knowledge, so we know that doctors are more than happy to murder their patients and this makes it far easier for them.
We have assisted dying in Canada. It's part of a bigger agenda I think. One that seeks power and control and no moral compass at all. Your article illustrates the fanaticism of the "Net Zero" philosophy, pushed by parasite class. The shots we received around the world was round one of the depopulation agenda. The truth about climate change is not being told, because it's not so convenient if people questioned the science. They spun that climate alarmism to weaken economies, and justify the "measures".
In Canada the economy is struggling with a huge debt, immigration causing chaos, the government and legal system and healthcare in a shambles. Trudeau resigns, but the country has been crippled I'm sorry to say.