Government Assisted Death and Rights
6 April 2025
Most people seem to believe that the Government cares about them, wants to protect them, nurture them and defend their “Rights” to self-determination. Certainly that is what the Government wants us all to believe.
If you are highly selective about what you chose to acknowledge and ignore everything else, you might see the exponential growth of Nanny State policies as evidence of this, and while the expansion of the so-called Nanny State does appear to be a thing, even a cursory glance at what else is going on belies this notional personification of the State as a doting Nanny wanting to wrap her darling grandchildren up in protective cotton wool and smother them with love and treats as something much more sinister.
This is an anecdote, but it’s a good place to start and we can add verifiable evidence later. I was at someone’s house on a work related matter about 15 or so years ago, and they had BBC News on their TV in the background. The BBC presenter was interviewing someone from the Government. I don’t recall who it was, it might not have been an MP, possibly some senior member of a department.
The topic being discussed was the detrimental health effects of smoking, its impacts on the NHS from a cost perspective and by extension the overall cost to the “taxpayer”. Some numbers were presented to the Government Official, making the case that smoking causes X number of cases of Y disease, and then representing that as a monetary value that is placed as a burden on the taxpayer.
We’ll set aside the obvious fact that anyone working for the BBC making arguments about wasting taxpayer money would have already resigned from their job at the BBC if they even slightly cared about the matter, and stick to the topic they were discussing, i.e. smoking causes diseases, this is then a burden to the NHS and the taxpayer, and why isn’t the Government using it’s Levers to do something about it.
That is a fair question, seeing as Government types love to pull their Levers at any opportunity, and from a somewhat naïve perspective, why would they allow this?
The response from the Government talking head was surprisingly candid to say the least. He replied that yes, smoking does indeed cause those issues, that is to say it causes diseases and yes this does place extra burden and therefore extra cost to the taxpayer, but this is all OK once you factor in the rest of the equation. He went on to explain that smokers tend to die earlier on average, and so there is actually a net saving here, as then there are State pensions they do not have to pay out, plus once dead those people are not burdening the NHS any more, and so on balance the financial burden that smoking puts upon the State and taxpayers is not really a thing, and if you crunch all the numbers, well we’re actually quids in.
I have paraphrased what was said, and I appreciate this is just anecdotal, as in I can’t show you a video clip or official transcript to prove that interview ever took place or what was said is how I have described it, so if you choose to dismiss the entire thing, I understand.
Regardless of what you believe about that interview, it had quite a profound effect on me. Not that I was ever one to trust the Government, believe politicians or vote in elections, but previously I’d thought it was all just corrupt, self-serving and incompetence/lack of care. It is all of those things but hearing that interview brought something new into focus, which was that the lack of care was much more malevolent than I’d previously considered.
At that time, I’d not read Hannah Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” where she describes the “essence of totalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy, is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them” as the mechanism by which truly evil things happen at scale, but it was obvious to me from that point on that this was the case.
We have discussed this previously, how turning people into interchangeable, dehumanised widgets that are “just doing their job”, thus dehumanising everyone they are responsible for supposedly caring for by reducing them to numbers on a spreadsheet where formulas and averages are applied, policies are created and decisions are made because the graph doesn’t look how they are told it should look, leads to death. Lots of death. It is all just numbers, plots on a graph, statistical noise and no-one actually cares. Not really.
Sure you’ll get some faux-care, but it usually looks like this…
Now that video is available at the time of writing on YouTube, I have not edited it other than to trim some branding from the start and finish. Fact Checkers have been all over this, as some people shared it and said it was from a G20 meeting. It is not. While I am all in favour of accuracy, attempts to dismiss what is said in this clip as “passing remarks”, or downplay it because it wasn’t said at a G20 meeting are to (deliberately) miss the point.
Fact Checkers would have you believe that in this conversation with Walter Isaacson, Bill Gates does not advocate for “death panels”. Let’s look at the transcript and break it down…
Isaacson: The proportion of GDP that goes to health care, is that over allocated?
Gates: Well, The US spends 17% of GDP on health care, and you drop down to number two, which is, Switzerland at 12%. And so you say, well, that hey, what do we get for that? Well, we get nothing.
Let’s interject here. Nothing? The US spends, according to Gates, 17% of GDP on “health care” and gets “nothing”? That was in 2010 approximately $2.55 trillion dollars, for (according to Gates) nothing. Let’s bear that in mind as we continue…
Gates: The health outcomes, which are complicated to compare, but the health outcomes are basically slightly worse, both in terms of averages and the inequity. The our bottom quartile is very ugly compared to all other rich countries’ bottom quartile. Our upper quartile is somewhat better, but that’s how you get the the inequity. So we’re spending at a huge rate, which if it wasn’t increasing faster than inflation, it’s increasing as a percentage of the economy, then, okay, you can probably afford it. But as it continues to grow, it squeezes unless people say, yes, I would like to be taxed a lot more, and most states have these supermajorities that are required to do that, and, you know, it’s not likely and it’s not clearly a good thing either.
It is important we hear that Gates is bothered about inequity. His incisive evaluation of the US health industry has revealed to him that the bottom quartile is getting shafted but the top quartile is doing very nicely, so in fact the $2.55 trillion is not getting the US population “nothing” exactly, just the bottom quartile. This is hardly news. It has been long-established that the US health industry is terrible unless you have plenty of money or good insurance which also costs a lot of money. The main reason for this is obvious. The health industry is dominated by huge companies desperate to wring every fraction of a cent out of every interaction, and also has zero interest in actual health. Gates seems oblivious to this though and thinks (so far) the only solution is to raise taxes, which he concedes is unlikely and “not clearly a good thing”. Addressing the relentless and blatant price-gouging and opportunistic profiteering seems to not have occurred to him. Let’s continue…
Gates: But unless, so if as as long as you’re dealing with a finite amount, as the medical cost goes up, and that shows up both in state budgets as so-called state Medicaid spending, and it shows up in the federal budget as as Medicare and they’re part of of Medicaid, it squeezes out everything else. So right now what you see is it’s squeezing higher education. You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they can, and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade off society is making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient, would it be better not to lay off the those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical costs? But that’s called the death panel, and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.
We’re fortunate that Bill Gates is so smart and such an incredible businessman, as he helpfully explains that if you don’t have infinity dollars then spending money on one thing means you will have less for other things. However his breadth of vision in all things health and finance related seems a tad glaucomic, as apparently “higher education” is the only thing of concern being “squeezed”.
Also apparently “society” is making this trade-off. What Bill means by “society” is anyone’s guess, as there is no person, organisation or group called “society” that we can directly attribute that alleged decision to. Usually when someone like Bill Gates utilises a nebulous, undefined term like “society” in a context such as this, it’s a hand-waving argument designed to bluster past actual details or scrutiny of what is being presented.
At no point does Bill think that one million dollars spent on a person in the final three months of their life is excessive, just that it would be better spent on teachers. There is no thought to finding out what could possibly justify that kind of price tag. No concern that people are being mercilessly plundered by the vultures running these gigantic “health” companies. Nope. The issue is that we don’t have “death panels” to make these overly simplistic evaluations… keep someone alive for 3 months or employ 10 teachers.
Remember though, Fact Checkers assured us that “death panels” was just a passing remark and there’s absolutely no way Gates was actually advocating for them. Let’s continue…
Isaacson: That’s an interesting thing you just said, which is just the last three months in life for one person or something because we haven’t had a discussion of how to allocate that money, it means we lay off three teachers to do so. I mean, in other words, we haven’t had this type of allocation.
Gates: We’re making that trade off because of huge medical costs that are not examined to see which ones actually have no benefit whatsoever. And because of pension generosity, we will be laying off over a hundred thousand teachers, which, you know, I’m very much against that, and the whole AFT will agree with me on that.
Isaacson’s interest is seemingly piqued at the idea of requiring a discussion about allocating money. Obviously the entire interview is contrived around this idea being presented, so this is not going to be a surprise to one of the 100 most influential men in the world according to Time 100.
This accolade is not without merit. Isaacson is on the board of United Airlines Holdings, Halliburton Labs, The New Orleans Advocate/Times-Picayune, New Schools New Orleans, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution for Science and the Society of American Historians. He is an Associate of the History of Science Department and a member of the Lowell House Senior Common Room at Harvard University, an honorary fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford and a special professor of history at Tulane University. He also is a member of the U.S. Department of Defense Innovation Advisory Board, and has held a slew of other Governmental positions over the years including being appointed by President George W. Bush as the chairman of the U.S.-Palestinian Partnership, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State appointed him vice-chair of the Partners for a New Beginning. He was editor of Time magazine and became CEO of CNN just in time to, as Wikipedia puts it, guide CNN through the events of 9/11.
One might wonder how Isaacson has time to write all the books that bear his name, or even sleep. This is not some newbie interviewing Gates. Isaacson is not interested in the sense that he’s just heard a compelling new idea and wants to hear more. He is deliberately steering the conversation in the way it was intended. He’s happy to skip past Gates’ myopia regarding the cost of health care in the US and what other things could be affected, because none of that is the point. Isaacson doesn’t even get the number of teachers that could be funded correct, and Gates doesn’t correct him, because that doesn’t matter either.
The important thing we are supposed to take away is there are “huge medical costs that are not examined to see which ones actually have no benefit whatsoever“, such as caring for those in the final few months of their lives, that could be better allocated to teachers according to Gates, and having to lay off teachers because those discussions are not happening, those discussions remember he told us are called “death panels”, he is “very much against that“.
So, he is, it is most definitely implied, against not having death panels. That is what he said. Obviously he talks slightly around it, but it is still quite clear. No guesswork or speculation needed. If you are against not having a thing, then you are for having the thing. It’s that simple.
The “Fact Checkers” seem to be incapable of comprehending fairly straightforward spoken English. Either that or they’re bought and paid-for professional gaslighters. Take your pick.
Ah yes, but Bill Gates is not the Government some might say. Ostensibly that is correct. But Gates via his Foundation and other investment and policy directing organisations have considerable clout when it comes to shaping Government policy, as well as his direct routes of influence by meeting with high-ranking politicians and flattering media coverage. This article on the Mirror website from October 2024 is a good example of the access and influence Gates has, backed by a fawning media.
Of course this is all presented through the PR tool used by every rapacious billionaire, “Philanthropy”. The notion being promoted is that Gates is determined to end poverty, but as this and many other articles highlight, his focus as always is vaccines, as GAVI and World Fund are the things he cares most about getting national Governments, and therefore taxpayers to bankroll, and we know that Gates understands there is lots of money to be made through the business of vaccines.
Remember, Bill Gates hated the idea of Governments involving themselves in his business when he was running the show at Microsoft. When the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in May 1998 over their attempts to monopolise the web browser market by using their dominance to squeeze Netscape out, and also to “wrest control of Java away from Sun”, Gates was obnoxiously petty and evasive during his deposition, refusing to answer even the most basic of questions, such was his disdain for the idea of the State poking around in his business.
Once his wealth was well established though, he has done what his heroes the Rockefellers did, which was to largely switch from the business that made them rich, the business they fought tooth and nail to defend from Government legislation, and go with, and it’s always the same industry… “Global Health” where they are suddenly huge fans of Government intervention and the seemingly infinite money that can be siphoned out for these alleged world-saving causes.
Gates now flies around the world in his private jet, lecturing politicians and meeting with other like-minded “global” parasites on how best to suck up more and more money from the public for those causes, absolutely none of which are beneficial to anyone but the technocrat class.
He was literally the face of COVID-19 vaccine sales for over 2 years, warning us, threatening us all that if we didn’t take the vaccines life would not return to normal, and it turns out that those vaccines never helped a single person, only caused huge amounts of harm and death. It should be obvious to everyone by now that there was never any such thing as COVID-19, as that is allegedly the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which doesn’t exist. But lots of people did get ill, and many died as a result of Government policies and interventions.
There is much more to be said about all that, but to stay on topic, it needs to be understood that Bill “death panels” Gates now spends most of his time tapping up Governments around the world to fund his pet projects, and they usually do. Why would that be? Why are most of the Governments around the world happy to take public money (or more accurately, further indebt the public by printing more money) and hand it over to the likes of Gates’ projects when he clearly places zero value on human life?
Well…
Yes, it just so happens that during peak “don’t leave your house or you’ll kill a granny” time, it was perfectly fine to leave your house and travel internationally if you wanted to kill yourself.
Absolutely DO NOT visit any family or friends, or face a huge fine and/or prosecution because there’s a deadly virus you Science Denier™ scum super-spreader, unless you want to “seek an assisted death abroad”, in which case don’t worry about spreading anything, it’s all fine. But if we find out you’re travelling for any other reason than to off yourself, you’re in big big trouble.
In this BBC article we can see that the fake pandemic was opportunistically being used by the Government to raise the topic of State assisted suicide as Hancock is quoted as saying…
“I think it is right that we locate this question within a broader discussion of how we care for people at the end of their lives which has become sadly – due to the coronavirus pandemic – a central issue of public debate in this country”
Matt Hancock – Shithead
That question being “how we best support people in their choices at the end of their life”. The thing is, the Government treated people abominably. It was absolutely inhuman how they locked old people away in so-called “care” homes and killed them with a regime of isolation, starvation, dehydration and end-of-life drugs.
Hancock as we know, didn’t even follow the Government rules. Many of the people pushing these horrendous policies, threats, fines and actual violence if you chose to protest against it simply partied away, visited mistresses, philandered and did whatever they liked, largely on the public dime because they knew full well there was no threat. They knew there was no scary virus, or they’d never risk it.
They killed loads of people, and disgustingly used the fear they’d generated to initiate a “public debate” about legalising the State providing suicide services. Except it’s not really a “public debate” is it? It’s a conversation between the very people that presided over thousands of deaths by policy and then thousands more by pushing a harmful vaccine, even going as far as bribing doctors and threatening people’s jobs if they didn’t want it… these are the people who are “debating” whether the Government should add more death to its already mortality-laden repertoire.
What, safeguards and monitoring like the Yellow Card System and VAERS for vaccine harms? The same Yellow Card System and VAERS that has been simply ignored by the Government and all the organisations that are supposedly there to protect the public, safeguards like that?
So in 2016 the Government in Canada, you know that Government that respects people’s rights so much that they froze people’s bank accounts and killed their pets if they protested about the wrong thing, they legalised euthanasia and in all states apart from Quebec, assisted suicide which is where the “patient” gets to press the button themselves.
Of course, this is all being strictly monitored, there are robust safeguards in place and the public is just being given their rights, because as we well know, if there is one thing Governments care about and are keen on safeguarding, it’s people’s rights.
The Canadian Suicide Service is known as Medical Assistance In Dying, or MAID. Governments do love their acronyms, especially if they can form a word that is part of the sales pitch. It is clear that the phrase “Medical Assistance In Dying” is not really a natural sentence or the way in which any normal person would speak. It has been contrived to fit the desired acronym, MAID, because the word “maid” is somewhat disarming. It has much milder connotations associated with it, help and assistance from a friendly or even subservient female, not death. It is then more of a “backronym” where they have chosen a word and formulated the acronym to fit.
Each year a report is published. The most recent is the Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance In Dying (mirror) which is for the year 2023. Each year the number of people euthanised in a year goes up. The number is going up so dramatically that even organisations that were initially supportive of MAID are now raising concerns.
With seemingly no trace of self-awareness the report has the following paragraph on page 2:
Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2023/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2023.pdf
and improve their health. Health Canada is committed to improving the lives of all of Canada’s people
and to making this country’s population among the healthiest in the world as measured by longevity,
lifestyle and effective use of the public health care system.
I’ve never considered deliberate killing to be a component of “improving lives”, nor would I consider intentional death part of any “public health care system”, but then perhaps I’m just a bit old-fashioned.
In 2023, 4.7% of all deaths were due to euthanasia which is 15,343 lives ended by the Canadian Government, a 15.8% increase over 2022. Since June 2016 there have been 60,301 registered cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
This means 25.44% of all cases since it became legal in June 2016 occurred in one year (13.33% of the total time) compared to the 6 and a half years previous. But this is all being robustly monitored and there are strict rules governing eligibility and because the Canadian Government cares so much no-one will be coerced into opting for death, or made to feel like a burden, right?
When it was originally made legal (Bill C-14) it was restricted to people whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. In March 2021 it was changed, and Bill C-7 expanded the Government’s offering to people regardless of the foreseeability of their natural death.
This is exactly what people warned of when the idea of State administered suicide was put forward, i.e. that the regardless of any “robust safeguards” it would end up being expanded to include people who are not terminally ill, but for whatever reason are made to feel like they are a burden.
An important statistic in this report is that while self-administered “assisted suicide” is legal everywhere in Canada apart from Quebec, out of the 15,343 lives taken by the State, less than 5 were actually self-administered, which tells you that really, people don’t actually want to kill themselves. But, they have been made to feel like life is not worth living and they will “consent” to someone else ending it for them.
It is not really possible to put into words just how awful this is, and it is enabled by the attitudes of people like Bill “death panels” Gates and all the politicians and eugenicist techno-loons who think it is better to just kill people than waste money caring for them and making them as comfortable as possible. No-one denies that the end-of-life process can be painful and traumatic, but we do have lots of things available to reduce that as much as possible without resorting to converting lives to some kind of business metric or dollar equivalent to justify killing them and then pretend this counts as “care” or “rights”.
In an article on the CTV News website a law professor named Isabel Grant is quoted as saying:
“…when other people express loneliness or a loss of dignity or a desire to die, we usually respond with support or prevention, but with people with disabilities, we respond with an offer for MAID”
What kind of a world are we living in where we have Governments offering death to people who are looking for support? In that article it explains that the Government has been looking to further expand “medical assistance in dying” to include people with a mental illness as their sole medical condition, but for now this has been postponed until March of 2027. Why on earth would anyone think this is acceptable, now or in March 2027?
There have been instances of veterans and ex-Olympic athletes who have been offered death when seeking support. Despite assurances that these are isolated instances, they got some attention because these people had the strength of character to speak up. People with mental health problems will not always have that.
Canada is not alone in having a Government that has elective death as part of it’s “health care” offerings. There are other Governments that have legalised it too, and still more are pushing hard, like the UK.
Unless you are functional tax cattle or otherwise useful to the Governments and their Private Sector partners, you are simply a burden and they’d prefer you dead. The evidence for that could not be more obvious.