Federal Government Claims - Killing a Human no Different than Picking Weeds in a Garden: Building Obama's Death Panels

Break out the champagne because bioethicist from Duke University and the National Institute of Health claim that killing a human being is not immoral or unethical. Instead what is morally unacceptable is the incapacitation of someone. Therefore, base on this logic a brain damaged, not to be confused with brain “dead”, individual that is incapacitated can morally and ethically be killed for their organs, because human life is similar to killing a weed when “weeding a garden.”

This could be wonderful news depending on how one defines “brain damaged”. Because quite frankly I contend that many people within the Occupy Wall Street movement couple with radical liberals, Marxist socialists and progressives are – brain damaged. Hence, killing them would neither be immoral or unethical, thereby leaving a very important issue rather shrouded in mystery which is the -- legality of such a killing.

The first question that arises is the issue of how someone is declared or determined to be brain damaged. Is declaring someone brain damaged similar to how Muslim men are permitted to divorce their wife by saying (out loud of course) – “I divorce you” three times in succession?

Or is there a more technical methodology for determining whether or not someone has brain damage such as Turrets (mother f**ker) Syndrome (b**tard) as I clearly (f**k you) have (a**hole)? And in a clear cut case such as this, does the doctor just immediately lop off the head and gut the man like a pig or is this a union job? And if the man has life insurance does this violate the "double indemnity clause?" Or is there a "s**t happens" clause to cover that?

Regardless, exactly how this process works needs to be messaged with a few thousand pages of regulations. The upside here is clear-- this is an Obama jobs creator for the American radical Islamic Muslim communities because there is nothing they would enjoy more than killing some crazy Americans.

And what exactly is the criterion, or the cut off point, of determining the extent of brain damage? Is there a test that the individual must take? If there is a test is it multiple choice or true false or perhaps the test would be issued in essay form?

Then there is the issue of time. Do you have to be brain damaged for 20 minutes, 20 days or 20 years? Certainly since the discussion is regarding the issue of “organ donation” time would be of the essence. Also age would be a significant factor to address as well. Thus could there be an age/time table in which a 20 year old must be brain damaged for at least 2 weeks and a 70 year old needs to be incapacitated for 7 minutes, before carving out the organ?

What about liability issues, in which some old guy passes out for 8 minutes and wakes up minus a spleen? Who is buying that -- taxpayers? How much is spleen? Are older spleens worth more than younger spleens? There is a great deal of detail that needs to be worked out, however so far it is looking good. Besides what could possibly go wrong? Your husband goes in for Lasek and comes out minus a kidney.

Mistakes like that though would probably be really, really rare especially with the crack government oversight experts. I'm mean that whole financial crisis and the bank regulators and the SEC oversight of Madoff -- that was handled BRILLIANTLY and has been executed (no pun intended) with the precision of a dimwitted brain damaged mental patient. So we have that going for us!

In addition to these issues there is the question of severity. If for instance a person is in a car crash and unconscious is the bioethicist there with a stop watch, a scalpel, a bag of ice and a cooler waiting to carve out the individual’s heart after a predetermined amount of time passes?

An interesting ethical dilemma does arise in the case of a pregnant woman that is seriously brain damaged due to an accident. As we know the United States Supreme Court bought the argument that an unborn “fetus” is merely a mass of "unviable" tissue that can be murdered, without legal, moral or ethical consequence until the unborn fetus has taken its first breath on its own.

Though it is legal for the mother to make the decision to “kill” the unborn, it is yet another legal issue for someone other than the mother to murder the unborn. One ethical issue arising from this scenario would be the legal rights of the mother versus the legal rights of the individual awaiting an organ transplant. If this pregnant woman has a unique blood and tissue type that is particular to the donee’s needs and time is of the essence – whose rights supersede the rights of the other?

Furthermore, who is the final arbiter on the value of one person’s life over that of another? Will it be a judge or would it be a medical panel? Would the medical panel be government bureaucrats or private doctors? And if they are private doctors would they not be violating their sworn Hippocratic oaths -- Primum non nocere, which is Latin for “First do no harm”, -- by condemning one person to death for the sake of another?

Obviously there is an ethical concern about the rights of the living versus the rights of the brain damaged. The mere thought of the National Institute of Health taking such a position, whereupon human life is nothing different than killing a weed should be repulsive to everyone. In fact the rather inhumane considerations bioethicist place on human life runs contrary to the high value humans place on the lives of animals, to the point that individuals are arrested and imprisoned for killing a dog.

It is not a surprise that the National Institute of Health, under the Obama Administration, has issued such a chilling proclamation, especially given that Obamacare has passed. There is a provision within the health-care bill that provides that a panel of bureaucrats -- determine who and what type of services an individual receives predicated on factors such as: age, health, lifestyle and benefit to society.

This type of bioethicist report provides the intellectual argument to support the federal government’s stance on future health-care rationing. Essentially, the federal government, under Obama, is building a legal case that permits the murder of American citizens. Certainly this should come as no shock since Obama has already murdered Americans abroad based on supposition and allegations regarding the all encompassing terrorism claim. And Obama has recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the federal government and the military to indefinitely imprison Americans without due process.

Welcome to Obamaville - a place with little hope and a whole lot of f**ked up change.