January 20, 2012
Elitist Eugenics In The Courts, and DMH
Journalists exacerbate this incident by emphasizing negative bias against persons with disabilities. They refer to the woman as a "[illness] woman." She is a human being, an American citizen with rights, who has a legal disability. Journalists show more compassion for illegal aliens who are repeatedly convicted of felonies. The courts deny persons with disabilities basic rights contrary to law. The Department of Mental Health advocated for the abuse using taxpayer money to deny rights to vulnerable citizens. The DMH is a taxpayer funded lobbyist for the drug industry and the psychiatric industry. They do not protect the rights of their vulnerable clients. Their human rights officer (a full time position) refers people to other taxpayer funded agencies which do little to prevent or to stop abuses.
The state says it "wasn’t advocating for anything other than the appropriate role of medical professionals and the patient’s family.” Lawyers, human services professionals and parents speak for persons with disabilities. Why are citizens denied the right to consent? Dissembling officials say the same people can consent to treatment and to be used as human subjects for experiments. But when it comes to procedures like abortion they say they not able to do so. What sane legal principle denies people the right to speak for themselves? This is a modern adaptation of the eugenics movement by contemporary elitists. The judge said it was a wrenching decision for her. Pity the poor judge. What about the individual woman whose basic rights were taken from her by the judge. Was it wrenching for her? Or doesn't she have any feelings or emotions? Professionals -- lawyers, judges, psychiatrists and DMH bureaucrats -- deny as a matter of convenience, the humanity of their clients. They believe they know better. They dehumanize humans in the name of treatment. How very National Socialist of them and their journalist enablers.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220120judge_calls_ruling_over_sterilization_wrenching/
Judge calls ruling over sterilization ‘wrenching’
By John Zaremba and Chris Cassidy
Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2012
The state says it "wasn’t advocating for anything other than the appropriate role of medical professionals and the patient’s family.” Lawyers, human services professionals and parents speak for persons with disabilities. Why are citizens denied the right to consent? Dissembling officials say the same people can consent to treatment and to be used as human subjects for experiments. But when it comes to procedures like abortion they say they not able to do so. What sane legal principle denies people the right to speak for themselves? This is a modern adaptation of the eugenics movement by contemporary elitists. The judge said it was a wrenching decision for her. Pity the poor judge. What about the individual woman whose basic rights were taken from her by the judge. Was it wrenching for her? Or doesn't she have any feelings or emotions? Professionals -- lawyers, judges, psychiatrists and DMH bureaucrats -- deny as a matter of convenience, the humanity of their clients. They believe they know better. They dehumanize humans in the name of treatment. How very National Socialist of them and their journalist enablers.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220120judge_calls_ruling_over_sterilization_wrenching/
Judge calls ruling over sterilization ‘wrenching’
By John Zaremba and Chris Cassidy
Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment