Germany's T4 project was promoted by children doing math problems about how much good could be done if the money "wasted" on the disabled was put to other uses.
And the movie makers went into high gear with "Ich Klaga An", to persuade people it was okay if the government killed your disabled child.
This film was commissioned by Goebbels at the suggestion of Karl Brandt to make the public more supportive of the Reich's T4 euthanasia program, and presented simultaneously with the practice of euthanasia in Nazi Germany.
The actual victims of the Nazi euthanasia program Action T4 were in fact killed without their consent, or that of their families.
The SS reported that the churches were uniformly negative about the movie, with Catholics expressing it more strongly but Protestants being equally negative....
Opinions in medical circles were positive, though there were doubts... Legal professions were anxious that it be placed on a legal footing, and in the few polls that were commissioned, the general population were said to be supportive.ah, but now we don't need a government office of propaganda. We have the MSM, with Hollywood cheering them on:
ACTION ALERT from the disability group "NotDeadYet"
“Me Before You” is the latest Hollywood blockbuster to grossly misrepresent the lived experience of the majority of disabled people.
In the film, a young man becomes disabled, falls in love with his ‘carer’ and they have an incredible 6 months together.
Despite her opposition, however, our hero does the “honorable” thing by killing himself at the Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas – so she can move on and he is no longer a burden to her.
Based on the best-selling novel of the same name, “Me Before You” is little more than a disability snuff film, giving audiences the message that if you’re a disabled person, you’re better off dead.
Sigh.Expect a lot more similar plots as you get brainwashed to accept this latest "right", which will probably come to you via the courts in the near future.
ah, but American children will never have math projects calculating how money wasted on the disabled could be better spent elsewhere.
They won't have to, because since the early 1990's, such calculations have been part of the discussion in "mainstream" bioethics.
From the Stanford University encyclopedia of Philosophy has a long article about the question from a theoretical standpoint
this is already being done in the UK, where the rationing board is named NICE...
In the 1990s philosophers, in particular bioethicists, debated the broad question of the justice of health care resource allocation, and in particular the ethical pros and cons of the dominant rationing strategy based on cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) with benefit characterized in terms of “quality of life”. A dominant theme in this literature was whether a pre-existing health state, or resulting health outcome, should be taken into account when allocating health resources. More specifically, the debate centered on whether a person’s disability should be taken into account, or whether doing so would be discriminatory or unfair.
George Orwell, call your office.