Eugenics marches onward and upward to robust applause, once again, in the twenty-first century.
Several comments and links on this topic:
Doctors at Freeman Hospital in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, began tracking urine samples of heart transplant recipients for evidence of smoking in 1993. They found that 104 former smokers returned to smoking after receiving their new hearts. These, the doctors report, typically lived twelve more years following their transplants, compared to a typical sixteen years for recipients who did not return to smoking. It may be assumed that those who smoked would likely be otherwise more self-indulgent but as usual no mention of this is made. Indeed no other habits or lifestyle factors of any heart transplant patients are mentioned, just smoking as usual, in the usual tones of condemnation. Furthermore, although complications following heart transplant are common amongst all classes of patients, when they occur in smokers they are attributed to "the toxic chemicals in tobacco," just as virtually all diseases common to all humans are "attributed to" tobacco when they occur in smokers. The "science" of antitobacco eugenics is the technique of stating ideological dogma as "science." Links: (Article) (stored version)
Action on Smoking and Health, under the authority of International Reichsführer John Banzhaf, as always has a solution, easy and thorough, in fact, a final solution. Some former smokers eligible for heart transplants (twenty-seven per cent of them in the Freeman Hospital report) may return to smoking so simply deny treatment to anybody with a history of smoking. Let them all die immediately. End of problem! (Note that ASH describes “more than one in four” in its article’s text yet denotes this as “most” returning to smoking for the triumphantly eugenic headline issued by its public relations department with the signature of the Reichsführer himself.) Links: (Article) (stored version)
The queasy antitobacco advocate Doctor Michael Siegel gets queasier about his colleagues all the time. He holds his stomach and reports on the ASH proposal in the Tuesday, 15 April edition, of his blog. Links: (Article) (stored version)
We note that organ donations are eagerly sought from smokers. Smokers’ organs, including hearts and lungs, are commonly used for transplant. Conspicuously, the British doctors, and Banzhaf, express no concern and certainly do not call for a stop to that. Of course, while insisting that a moment in the same room with a smoker is an intolerable health threat, the medical profession also solicits blood donations from smokers, transferring these into the veins of uncountable patients everywhere, every day.
While hoping to kill sick smokers as quickly as possible, John Banzhaf may have personal reasons for wanting to keep smokers’ hearts available, potentially for himself. The Reichsführer (pictured at right), also referred to in some quarters as "Der Belly," might believe he’ll have need of your heart one day. If you have any gold fillings we understand he takes an interest in those too, nicotine-tinged, or not.
Attorney Banzhaf founded ASH in the 1960s. He has been enriching himself through the propagation of fear and hate ever since. Creating social division and misery is the passion of his flabby heart. Lately he has branched out into — yes, really — the anti-obesity realm and related lawsuits. Attorney John Banzhaf (stored link) is our candidate as the most nauseating and destructive man of his generation.
A dedicated reader from the UK sends us his take on the heart transplant situation:
Why mince words? There is only one way to describe what the ASH zealots have become: vindictive immoral scum who bring the name of charity into disrepute in no uncertain terms. Also, given the objects of ASH (UK) which are …
“To assist carry out promote and encourage research into the effects upon health of cigarette and other forms of smoking and to collect and study information relating thereto with a view to the publication of the results of such research for the benefit of the general public.” (Link) (stored)
… it’s apparent with their move into encouraging clinical decisions on who gets treated they are acting ultra vires (beyond their powers) which also means they are in breach of trust. If ever a charity was long overdue for examination and censure by the Charity Commission, this is certainly such a case.
Now, let’s have a look at ASH (Scotland). Their objects are:
“The objects for which the Company is established are the advancement of health to protect people from the harmful effects of tobacco through promoting and encouraging effective policy and standards development; training and education in cessation and prevention and dissemination of research and relevant information for the benefit of all communities and the public generally.” (Link) (stored)
As they support the same general line as taken by ASH (UK) I would contend that they are identically in breach of trust for there is nothing that promotes health about introducing vindictive discriminatory policies when it comes to clinical decision-making regarding the treatment of patients. Nor is it the duty of a charity to dictate how we should live.
Moreover, as smokers have paid for their medical treatment many times over – not only because they have paid their National Insurance contributions, but because the government benefits handsomely from the tax on tobacco at the point of sale and, still more, from the corporation tax levied on the profits of the tobacco companies.
Therefore denying people treatments which they have paid for amounts to theft, and for a government to deny treatment which is promised in return for National Insurance is a breach of contract.
ASH in the UK has become a profoundly nasty organisation and it is also to the shame of powerful sections of our medical profession that they encourage such proposals by ASH. This is moral corruption of the first rank.