Excess Deaths in the UK –
Was Midazolam Used as a Quiet Euthanasia Tool During COVID?
When people look back at the COVID-19 years in the United Kingdom, the official story is simple: a deadly virus swept through care homes and hospitals, and thousands of frail, elderly patients died despite the best efforts of the NHS. But a growing number of families, whistleblowers, and independent researchers say there’s another layer that has never been honestly addressed – the role of powerful sedative drugs like midazolam in the spike of excess deaths. They point to protocols that emphasized “comfort care,” heavy sedation, and “end-of-life” pathways for patients who were never given a real chance at treatment or recovery, asking whether some of those deaths were not just tragic, but avoidable.
Midazolam is a strong sedative often used to relieve anxiety, help with invasive procedures, and ease suffering at the very end of life. During the pandemic, it was also central to many palliative care guidelines for COVID patients who were struggling to breathe. Critics argue that in some cases the line between easing distress and shutting down life became dangerously blurred. They highlight reports of large midazolam stockpiles, orders spiking just as strict triage rules came into force, and care-home residents being put on “anticipatory prescribing” – where sedatives and opioids were authorized in advance, sometimes without family informed consent. To them, this looks less like individual clinical judgment and more like a system quietly prepared for mass withdrawal of active care.
The most severe accusations go further, suggesting that midazolam may have been used as a kind of chemical shortcut: instead of overwhelming hospitals with fragile patients, sedate, label as “end of life,” and allow nature – accelerated by drugs that depress breathing – to take its course. Families who were not allowed to visit in person, who only saw their loved ones on video calls or heard rushed phone updates, now ask whether “they’re comfortable” really meant “we’ve stopped trying.” Even if no one wrote the word “euthanasia” on a chart, the combination of isolation, blanket DNR decisions, and heavy sedatives has convinced many that at least some deaths were nudged rather than simply accepted.
On the other side, health authorities and many clinicians insist that midazolam was used appropriately, within palliative guidelines, to relieve unbearable suffering at the end of life. They reject the claim of any organized policy to “cull” the elderly. But even that defense leaves hard questions unanswered. Why were so many patients moved so quickly from “treat” to “palliate”? Why were families often shut out of decisions? And why has there been so little transparent, independent review of how sedatives and end-of-life orders were actually applied during the worst waves of the pandemic?
From an America First constitutional lens, the UK’s midazolam debate is a warning about what happens when emergency powers, fear, and centralized health policy collide. Once a government declares a crisis, changes guidelines from the top, and limits outside scrutiny, it becomes very easy for “best practices” to slide into something far more troubling without anyone signing a formal order. Whether or not there was deliberate intent to shorten lives, the combination of excess deaths, powerful sedatives, and weak oversight has left a deep scar on public trust. The uncomfortable truth is that in a modern medical system, ending life no longer requires a visible act – it can happen quietly, through protocols, pathways, and dosing charts that most families never get to see.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Nov. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Comments
Post a Comment