Main Edition
US
FR
March 13, 2024 - 1:00pm
As headlines go, it was strong stuff. “Vast majority of voters support change in law on assisted dying”, screamed the Times this week, reporting the results of a poll commissioned by Dignity in Dying, a pro-euthanasia campaign group, which purported to show that around three-quarters of the United Kingdom’s population support legalising the practice.
Now Sir Keir Starmer has weighed in, stating his commitment to allowing a vote on legalising assisted dying in the next parliament. Speaking to campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen for an ITV programme, the Labour leader claimed that he was “personally in favour of changing the law”.
Between polling results such as that covered in the Times, well-choreographed expressions of support from vaguely familiar celebrities, and now an endorsement from the likely next prime minister, the conclusion of the “debate” on euthanasia, as its proponents like to call it, may seem to be foregone. Really, it is anything but.
As the recent Irish referendum on proposed amendments to its constitution has reminded us, polling is at best an inexact science, and its results may hinge on social desirability above all else. There, poll after poll showed that the Yes side, which was backed by all the major parties, was going to manage a comfortable win. In the end, though, both proposed amendments were decisively defeated, and one was voted down with the biggest No vote for any constitutional referendum since the establishment of the Irish state.
And this is before looking at the wording of the Dignity in Dying poll — wording which has not been publicly released, only a press summary of carefully selected figures. But of all issues, euthanasia is not one which is reducible to a series of Yes/No answers.
Time after time when I have debated the issue in public, I have had the same experience of seeing an audience, initially in favour of legalising euthanasia, change its mind as the experiences of other jurisdictions which have legalised it are discussed. As consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, of removing the taboo on the deliberate killing of another are laid bare.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAssisted suicide in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly very soon in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. In all six states of Australia, in fact, so it has received Royal Assent there six times. Jersey and the Isle of Man are specifically Crown Dependencies. What is the monarchy for? That whole Coronation malarkey, what did it mean?
I have no idea where those classless and incorrupt republics are supposed to be, so the case for change has not been made. The arguments for a republic are rubbish in their own terms. But in their own terms, so are the arguments for the monarchy. Britain may yet have a fourth Prime Minister in this Parliament, and it has had three General Elections in the last nine years, so the world does not exactly look at us and see stability.
And symbolic value, you say? Symbolising what values? Assisted suicide in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and possibly very soon in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. You cannot symbolise nothing, and there is no value in trying to do so. Quite the reverse, in fact. Monarchists may console themselves only that the republicans’ arguments are no better, thereby upholding the status quo by default.
The legalisation of assisted suicide would give to a High Court judge in the Family Division such power over life and death as no judge in this country had enjoyed since the abolition of capital punishment. My paternal grandfather was born before such working-class men could vote in parliamentary elections, and my maternal ancestors included African slaves, Indian indentured labourers, and Chinese coolies. We who come off the lower orders and the lesser breeds, and perhaps especially those of us who are disabled, know perfectly well who would be euthanised, and how, and why.
Even if we had made it past the industrial scale abortion that disproportionately targeted us, then we would face euthanasia as yet another lethal weapon in the deadly armoury of our mortal enemies, alongside their wars, alongside their self-indulgent refusal to enforce the drug laws, alongside Police brutality and other street violence, alongside the numerous life-shortening consequences of economic inequality, and alongside the restoration of the death penalty, which is more likely than it has been in two generations, and which would not be repealed if the Prime Minister were a former Director of Public Prosecutions who was now a war criminal.
All this, and the needle, too? This is class and race war, and we must fight to the death. That death must not be ours, but the death of the global capitalist system. Having subjected itself to that system to a unique extent, Britain is uniquely placed to overthrow it, and to replace it with an order founded on the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death. That foundation would and could be secured only by absolute fidelity to the only global institution that was irrevocably committed to that principle, including the full range of its economic, social, cultural and political implications. For all its Commonwealth role, that institution is not the British monarchy.
“….it has had three General Elections in the last nine years….” Here in Australia, we have a Federal election every three years anyway. Good thing too.
What on earth is all this about?
(In)voluntary euthanasia is unlikely to be limited to the lower classes.
Anyone whose death
– brings financial benefit to someone,
– eliminates a competitor,
– annihilates a crime witness like me, who cannot be tricked, bribed or terrorised into submission, etc.
is a likely candidate.
Any punishment – and good luck to you, if you expect punishment for crimes in a country like Australia – is after the fact.
The dead will stay dead.
Such nonsense, I’ve never heard that argument.
The ultimate argument is down to the individual and their quality of life. If someone is so unhappy, in pain and suffering that life is a miserable existence then one should have that option.
Exactly. I interpret it the exact opposite way. Current calls for euthanasia arise from the idea that an individual life exists substantially enough outside of a society that the individual themselves should have the right to shut it off or not.
What guarantee do you have that the individual in question is going always to be the one to make the decision?
The legislation would enshrine it.
Legislation just like ‘safeguards’ in the 67 abortion act which the BMA thought would reduce the number of abortions below 14,000 pa.
I am extremely pro-abortion, so whatever your point is (and I know nothing about the Act you refer to), it is likely to be lost on me.
There will be processes in place. Sorry, but duh.
And the processes will make absolutely no difference, much like the processes that were put in place for abortion in the UK (signatures of two doctors, ‘danger to the mother’s health’ etc.). Duh.
So what’s the problem? Would you prefer the subject to blow his head away or would you prefer him to take some pills and go to sleep forever.
That is a matter of individual choice. As long as the subject makes his own choices he is free to do so – and no one can stop him anyway.
Our choice here is whether we treat human life as if it is worth something, and suicide as a horrible thing, or human life as just another piece of animated meat and suicide as the normal recommended way of ending it. Compare it with smoking. People are free to smoke – it is a free country – but society thinks that smoking is bad adn discourages it. Vegetables, on the other hand, are good and promoted regularly. I think we should keep treating suicide as a bad thing that we discourage, not as a n officially supported way to stop being a burden on others and consuming scarce resources. Then let people make their own choices, without insisting that society should validate their desire to kill themselves.
“Our choice here is whether we treat human life as if it is worth something, and suicide as a horrible thing, or human life as just another piece of animated meat and suicide as the normal recommended way of ending it“.
If I reach the point where I think my particular human life no longer has value to me, and I want to end it, what business is that of yours?
You can end it. But, we can view that as a tragedy and ‘a horrible thing.’ You can end your life as things stand but you can’t expect societal approval for that act.
People do have that option. If you want to kill yourself, you can. This is about whether society should encourage the process or not. And *that* is about whether human life is worth something by itself, or whether those no longer useful should be encouraged to go away.
If you are fit and active you have that option. You can walk to the top of a multi-story car park, or a high cliff. If you’re that fit you’re not really a candidate for euthanasia.
This is not the US, we can’t have a loaded pistol on the bedside table during our last illness.
In a lot of places in the world, killing oneself simply involves picking up one’s gun, loading it, pointing it in the right direction, and making it go “bang”. That is far less an option in Britain though.
It is absolutely *not* about whether society should “encourage” this. It is about whether it should be permitted without fear of prosecution. It is about freedom and personal choice and responsibility.
Your comment seems entirely valid and reasonable. So, I am amazed – concerned even – that it has received so many downvotes (at the time of writing, 7 down against 10 up).
Canada legalised assisted dying in 2016 – initially only for the terminally ill, in 2021 that was extended to those with a chronic physical condition.
More sinister still was a recent advert on Canadian TV extolling not merely the morality but “the beauty” of assisted suicide, as though the policy is virtuous enough to be in line with the “brand values” the company wishes to promote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssvubnVvgg
Imagine, say, a John Lewis advertisement that reassured you that they are on your side, that they understand how difficult the cost of living crisis is for their customers, and that if only Granny would forego her expensive medical care and agree to being pushed off her perch then the rest of the family could get that lovely new sofa in the January sales, not to mention freeing up a house for the kids to sell.
We’re not quite there, yet – but this is where it starts. Normalising assisted suicide is the first step to pressuring people that it’s the responsible choice to take.
If anyone had suggested just a few years ago corporations advertising their support for euthanasia, it would have seemed the stuff of dystopian sci-fi. Perhaps the scariest thing is just how readily believable such a practice is now.
Which celebrity would be shameless enough to front such a campaign, I wonder? Pehaps if Walkers tire of that grinning Toby-jug, he might do it. ……
“Dignitas. Because …. why be a burden?”
whereas the moral position is insisting that people continue to exist when they have no desire to and/or are in chronic pain for… what exactly?
What if assisted suicide is the responsible choice to take?
And this supposedly moral position forces everyone to suffer whatever end time and chance have picked for them. How can it be moral to force someone to suffer from a painful terminal cancer when we have the means to allow them a quick and painless death in the manner they choose? Just to save some cantankerous octogenarians the need to preserve goodwill with their offspring.
I’m wary when I see who is championing which side of this debate. It is the ‘right to life’ Right that seems always to be the side pushing back whilst the ever tolerant liberal Left thinks euthanasia and late term abortions are all part of “choice” and therefore need to be enshrined in statute.
Personally I could be persuaded to support the idea of assisted suicide for the terminally ill who are in pain and want to go with some dignity and at a time of their own choosing.
But for the reasons elucidated in this article – and particularly looking at the unforseen consequences in countries where they legalised it – the process should never be too easy, and certainly should not ever be considered commonplace
Yeah I do think they’re part of choice. No surprise that the illiberal right are looking to suppress others’ individual freedoms. (no doubt while insisting of the sacrosanctity of their own of course)
You really have no fears of it being misused?
Can you honestly not imagine it being used to pressure elderly and infirm – but not terminal – citizens?
Every new power and law gets abused – or used inappropriately – over time.
‘Every new power and law gets abused – or used inappropriately – over time’.
Indeed!
How about the current power and law?
From my point of view, the current power and law massively abuses – and uses inappropriately – it’s existing powers to prohibit substances that individuals could use to end their lives peacefully WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION BY MEDICS.
Why oh why should medics be involved in ending lives – they’re meant to be about healing and saving lives.
I want the legal right to acquire substances that I, at my sole discretion, can use to end my life peacefully at a time of my own choosing while taking into account the views of the very, very few who really give a damn about me living or dying.
The idea of the state having the power to force people to live on against their expressed wishes is the very essence of totalitarian abuse.
Even if the last sentence is true, it does not mean that people should be prevented from exercising what I regard as a fundamental human right.
There are plenty of stories about it since Canada relaxed its laws – all in the name of choice and compassion.
Canadian man: Assisted suicide being pushed on me by hospital (nypost.com)
‘Disturbing’: Experts troubled by Canada’s euthanasia laws | AP News
Why is Canada euthanising the poor? | The Spectator
Some Canadian Patients Say They’re Being Coaxed Into Euthanasia to Cut Costs (reason.com)
Yet you’re concerned with the “Illiberal Right”?
Good luck with that!
Perhaps the term “Religious Right” would be better than “Illiberal Right”.
Canada now has some of the world’s most permissive euthanasia laws, allowing adults to seek medically-assisted suicide for many forms of suffering. In 2021, more than 10 THOUSAND people availed themselves of this new legislation – that’s over 3% of all deaths in Canada that year.
It is one thing for the law to permit the withdrawal of life support in the face of agonizing pain. But Canada has instituted a system that allows people to choose doctor-assisted death for depression and other mental health issues, simple old age and even, most controversially, financial worries
If you aren’t worried by that – and honestly imagine that it is the Right who are being illiberal by pushing back against this, then heaven help you!
The 3% indeed sounds high, but how many of those were terminal and were likely to die that year anyway? Has the (regular) number of suicides decreased with the increase of the assisted variety?
I’m not coming down on either side, I’d just like some context on the figures.
It’s all suicide isn’t it? Would it be more apt to ask if the overall number of suicides had increased?
I would imagine it has and I would imagine it will increase further with this normalising of suicide.
When suicide is seen as unacceptable, even, dare I say it, sinful, those struggling with suicidal ideation are more likely to keep struggling rather than succumb to those suicidal thoughts.
But my point was has the assisted dying laws actually led to more people dying year on year, as the 3% statistic implies? If the bulk of those who chose it were terminally ill and likely to be dead in a few months anyway then I don’t really see the problem. However if the number of deaths per year has jumped considerably due to many choosing assisted dying then it becomes an issue.
Is people choosing “assisted dying” so much worse than them choosing “unassisted dying” (namely shooting themselves, hanging themselves, or jumping off a tall building)?
It’s less messy, and has less chance of going wrong
I think the number of suicides goes up in countries after assisted dying is legalised.
This is especially so for women, I think.
I haven’t time to check, personally, I’m meant to be planning now, but when I can I will.
Perhaps the ‘illiberal right’ is afraid of what the totalitarian left might do with these facilities when they take power. After all, you guys do have form in this department.
Utopian totalitarianism, let the authoritarian Left decide who is worthy of life. They have form in this regard, their ideology is responsible for the death of millions over the last 100 years.
Except that in relation to what we are discussing, it is the person themselves who decides whether they live or die. I regard myself as having the right to choose that, and can conceive of the circumstances where I would avail myself of the right to die, whether or not the State approves.
Can you guarantee that?
Well, yes. I mean, I can’t guarantee that I won’t be murdered by someone, but I can guarantee that under Australian assisted dying laws, the government won’t say “Come on you old duffer, it’s time for your green needle”.
I do not have an issue with that just “UnHerd Reader’s” comment. I do recall a few years ago an American doctor suggesting peoples lives were of little value after the age of 70.
That’s his opinion, and he’s entitled to it, but that doesn’t of itself entitle him to kill anyone. I for my part hope and expect to still be working full time at 70, and hopefully for some time thereafter (I am 61 now).
Opposition to assisted suicide forces nobody to do anything. If you want to kill yourself, who is to stop you? Sorry for being gruesome, but I have to say this clearly: If you want to kill yourself, it is not that hard to get a sharp knife and do the deed – much like the ancient Romans did. The issue is not that people are forced to keep suffering – they are not. Then issue is that people want society to *support* their choice, they want confirmation that they are doing the right thing, they want a nice man in a white coat alongside, they want to have their friends and family at the farewell party. Now I am sure that many people would feel less scared and alone if they could feel that they are in control of the process, but that is *not* a matter of unbearable suffering. Alleviating unbearable suffering might justify doing some very hard things. But protecting people’s feelings for the last few days is not worth moving to a society where we are all encouraged to shuffle off already and stop consuming resources, and where it is the people who do *not* want to kill themselves who have to justify their decision.
Canada decriminalized suicide in 1972. Changing the criminal code to allow medical staff to kill patients was done because the Supreme Court of Canada deemed not providing “assistance” a form discrimation against disabled people who were not physically able to kill themselves. Now plenty of people who are able to take too many pills or otherwise end their lives are “accessing MAiD services”. Having a doctor do you in with an injection on a schedule may make the final solution decision easier than old style DIY suicide.
Exactly. Officially supported, medically sanctioned suicide is less scary and easier to embark on than the other kind. Therefore legalising it has the effect of encouraging more people to do it. Now if people really want to kill themselves they are free to do so, but I prefer livinng a society that envourages people to stay alive than one that does its best to make it easy for them to die.
I saw a documentary about Dignitas in Switzerland. In that, the doctor hooked up the IV, but you had to “push the button” yourself.
Actually it is very easy to mess up your demise. My friend shot himself him the head recently and bungled it. Luckily the hospital saw fit to give him large amounts of morphine which finished him off. Killing yourself isn’t that easy. Far more peaceful for everyone if it is drug induced assisted killing.
When attempting to kill yourself with a gun, it is unarguably necessary to point the gun in the right direction.
I own guns, so for me, “unassisted dying” is simple enough, provided I retain locomotor skills. However, the idea of a relative finding me and having to scrub my brains off the ceiling is less appealing than getting a nice tablet off a nice doctor.
If you are in favour of assisted dying accept that the rigorous safeguards would not last.
It would not just be used for painful terminal illnesses.
We know this for certain because the safeguards are not, in practice, that rigorous.
Hysterical
So doctors do not give morphine to their patients knowing that it will kill them? Or any other strong painkillers? It has been happening since there have been doctors and patients. If you are unlucky enough to have a doctor who believes in God, you are “gubbed”! No morphine, no choice!
I think we need to remember all those that clambered for prolonged lockdowns and social distancing because we had to protect the elderly and sick from a greater risk of death!
Heaven forbid people die in largely natural circumstances! Not when the state can foot the bill and do it on demand!
Who is saying that the state should pay for voluntary euthenasia ?
Heaven forbid that people should be free to take their own decisions without some “we know better” modern priesthood trying to tell them otherwise.
I don’t think “the green needle” is all that expensive anyway.
You’re ignoring all the procedural paperwork that will be wrapped around this … need for everyone involved to have extra liability insurance, etc. . The medical industry doesn’t have a habit of doing things low cost and efficiently – it will bundle in as much costly labour and complexity as it can.
That’s not me arguing against myself here – just a recongntion that this sort of thing is unlikely to ever be cheap. Indeed, putting a real cost on it might not be a totally bad thing.
Well, there may be paperwork involved, but the actual fatal substance itself is cheap.
Now 8% of deaths in.Quebec. As this practice is evolving in Canada, i find myself wondering how much difference there will be between Assisted death and Shipman. The current tenor of the discussion reflects the transhumanism trend. it’s easy to kill humanity, if it is already perceived as a machine in a meat suit.
That’s a false argument. Dr Shipman didn’t tell his patients what he was doing and he didn’t get their informed consent. That’s why it was murder. Letting someone have a lethal pill when they request one is a completely different thing.
Only last month, the former MP turned centrist favourite Matthew Parris wrote that: “Once our national culture openly condones such an act, the terminally ill may put pressure on themselves to do the deed.’ […] In time, I think that the spread and acceptance of assisted dying may indeed do that. And let me bite deeper into the bullet. I think this would be a good thing.”
That’s certainly much politer and nicer, albeit equivalent in meaning, than saying, “Hurry up and die, damn you.”
I disagree. The issue is not whether the life is useful to society, it is whether it is useful or desirable to the person living it.
If I were terminally ill, as Ms. Rantzen is, and I wished to curtail my life to avoid the really nasty bit at the end, who else’s business is it?
You may have philosophical or religious objections, but you can’t foist them on other people.
Precisely. I deplore the way in which this debate is couched in language based upon pre-determined positions.
It really is about not prosecuting those who assist with a peaceful ending of life for someone in intractable pain – yes it happens, despite the best drugs and care available.
If i were so inclined, i’d wish an unrelieved ending on those who use their “philosophy” or religion to argue against legally assisted death – but i’m more humane than that.
“The issue is not whether the life is useful to society, it is whether it is useful or desirable to the person living it“. Absolutely correct! My motto is “If it stops being fun, I stop doing it”!
“screamed the Times this week”
Hyperbole damages the case the author is making before we even start on the facts.
Agree. The word ‘euthanasia’ can also carry the connotation of killing people against their will or without their consent. The confusion is hinted at when the author writes “… removing the taboo on the deliberate killing of another are laid bare.” Better to use the words like Voluntary Assisted Dying, if that’s what the proposal is for. That’s what we call it in Australia where it has passed through all the state parliaments, so it has been extensively debated. The U.K. could save a lot of time and just copy the legislation of one of our states – it’s working just fine here.
And Belgium? Netherlands? Canada? Working just fine there?
That is for citizens of Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada to answer. As an Australian, I second Russell Hamilton’s comment that it seems to be working fine here.
How does the 11% of ‘complications’ compare with the number of people who mess up their own attempts at suicide? And what are these complications caused by? We seem to get putting down our suffering pets right somehow.
Assisted dying is the epitome of a society that really cares and does not want unnecessary suffering. Will the death always be smooth sailing? No. But mostly it is.
What of those who assist and couldn’t care at all? Because they want an early inheritance, say? They resent the care home fees? Or dislike/hate the sick person? Or the sick person is a nuisance? Or the doctor wants the fees?
Everyone should have a living will that they make when of sound mind. I have one which is lodged with my attorney. It’s not hard..
Almost hysterical language. Newspaper straplines in The Times don’t “scream”.
There’s only one way to find out what people actually believe and want here. And absolutely no reason not to do so. But we can’t possibly let people choose for themselves, can we ? Where would the modern priesthoods of the righteous be then ?
One suspects this author is in favour of “national conversations”, “consultations” and “debates” on this subject. If he was really as confident as he claims, he’d front up and advocate real public consulation. But I’m not hearing that.
And what is this “taboo on the deliberate killing of another” ? For centuries, we had capital punishment. And it happens all the time in wars.
You really do have a very skewed view of the sanctity of life if you use criminals and war as your primary examples of an argument for euthanasia.
Just commenting on the misleading comment in the original article. Is there some logical problem with my statement here ?
But where is it mandated that we must all believe in this “sanctity of life” ? That’s a largely religious concept. We’re not all believers. It’s a free country. Which also means that the religious have no mandate to force their views onto others. However much they might think they do.
“Sanctity of life” is a concept like “universal human rights” which many in power and authority believe we also all believe. Not everyone does – certainly not that these are absolutes to be defended at all costs, everywhere regardless of the context and the cost and what the individuals involved actually want.
The key concept here is that people who would consider legalising Voluntary Assisted Dying are not forcing this on anyone. I’m not trying to constrain your behaviour in any way. But your attitude would appear to be that you have some special right to constrain mine – i.e. your rights and beliefs are somehow more important and more valid than mine. Sorry, but I’m just not buying that. We’re in the 21st century now. Not the Middle Ages where the Church tells us what we can and can’t do.
At the end of the day, you either believe in personal freedom, choice and responsibility or you don’t.
This change is coming. People want it. We’re just arguing about how soon.
Bravo! Speaking as an Australian, in my case “This change has come”!
I think Peter B’s arguments are in favour of “voluntary assisted dying”, not “euthanasia”. The key is his support for the proposition that people should “choose for themselves”.
Fight all you like but Labour will win the election and this will happen and people will be pmeased with it no matter what you wish to believe.
May God help you all with a Labour win, you’re going to need it.
At times I am frozen with horror at the threat the incompetence of Australia’s Labor ministers, especially the grotesque shortcomings of Clare O’Neil, Minister for Cyber Security and Home Affairs (no less) pose to civilisation, not just to Australia’s population. Life is stranger than fiction in Australia.
Advanced crime-tech was delivered against me by 2009 with production-line efficiency, quality & consistency: these capabilities would have been used by then for many years against other crime targets – evidently without any risk of prosecution.
Ms O’Neil cheerfully trivialises insurmountable cyber-security challenges, advertises her astonishing lack of common-sense/life-experience far & wide, she “lost” dozens of illegal migrants from child sex offenders to murderers, etc.
Meanwhile Australia’s MEEHAN-MARCUCCI biker thugs with government/military day-jobs have been violating the Geneva Convention (it took me almost 5 years to give the experience its rightful name – the horror is indescribable) in Clare O’Neil’s electorate since at least 2019 in my forced experience.
Clare O’Neil has been the MP for my electorate since 2013.
The stalker ex-coworker’s crimes against me started in 2009.
I never even dated the stalker.
Clare O’Neil ignored my pleas for help in 2015, when I realised that Victoria Police (our sole law-enforcement entity without duty of care/accountability, with a monopoly on what is a crime) trivialise & dismiss crimes punishable by 10 years in jail – at best.
Australia’s bikers routinely walk free from court as witnesses refuse to testify. Look up my story to see why this is inevitable.
I am obviously not the only crime witness terrorised via actual war-crimes delivered remotely to our bodies 24x7x365.
The capabilities must be highly portable: I suffered the most immediately debilitating incident at my gym class on 9 July 2022.
I vomited at the slightest move for about 10 hours.
Dizziness tapered off over 7+ months. Tinnitus in my left ear continues to this day (20 March 2024).
I am lucky to have become isolated by crimes before these incidents started in 2019. I don’t have to witness my loved ones being subjected to e.g. electric shocks delivered to the heart, brains, etc. likely via the Power Over Internet protocol.
My last forced war-crime experience is from the 7th of March 2024. Writing this on the 20th of March 2024. There is no entity in Australia to which it would be possible, let alone safe & effective to report what I am forced to experience, so these crimes will remain undocumented & unpunishable, crimes, including murder will remain risk-free for the worst criminals in Australia.
This undermines the foundations of civilisation.
Peace – as someone said – is the existence of justice, not just the absence of war.
As a victim of ongoing, devastating crimes delivered via government/military-grade tech in government/military insider biker hands, the most terrifying document I have read in many years is Clare O’Neil’s cyber security strategy for Australia.
The opportunity cost of Clare O’Neil’s latest stellar resume entry is unfathomable.
Yet Clare O’Neil will be re-elected over and over again.
She lacks the ability to recognise her own mistakes, she has no doubt about her own excellence – she evidently never had to acknowledge anyone questioning her abilities. Hence she comes across as strong & confident, and she is an expert at self-promotion.
In a country with the waiting list of the NHS, yes, I suspect that there is support for assisted dying amongst those unable to pay for private care. Given the choice of living in ill health misery or choosing to die, I would take the latter. It’s really an indication of how dysfunctional and thoroughly miserable life in the UK often is.
“Only last month, the former MP turned centrist favourite Matthew Parris wrote that: “Once our national culture openly condones such an act, the terminally ill may put pressure on themselves to do the deed.’ […] In time, I think that the spread and acceptance of assisted dying may indeed do that. And let me bite deeper into the bullet. I think this would be a good thing.””
top notch first order thinking. then poor Parris got a bit tired and couldnt follow the thinking through to second order. unlike the Nazis did in the 30s and 40s. this is the real problem: dim posh people in positions of influence.
Just because this happens elsewhere doesn’t mean it will happen here. This is a weak argument.
I would not want to be a burden on others. I see how my mother suffered from the burden of caring for my father until he died. After which my mum had a new lease of life.
I’m in favour of assisted dying and have an Advanced Decision setting out my wishes. I accept this will not commit someone to help me die, but should prevent people keeping my alive, with life extending drugs and therapies, against my wishes.
I think it may be helpful to think harder about the question why we ‘need’ to consider Euthanasia. The reason may well be due to the kind of mainstream medicine that health systems adhere to. The science and thinking behind this medicine is too mechanical, approaching the patient as made out of chemical reactions and parts working together, trying to fix things.
In reality we are complex dynamic beings in constant complex relation to/with our surroundings and other life. Modern medicine only very tentatively touches on this, likely knowing it does not have the (right) answers.
Relieving suffering is vastly more complex than taking pain away and need medical approaches that recognise the complexity of life and have developed ways to effectively provide help. This was recognised in the Gujarat declaration (which by the was way not mentioned in any press outlet in Europe even though the G20 ratified the text : see WHO Gujarat declaration).
It will be wiser to invest time un understanding what Integrative medicine and One health really mean in oder to develop and real multidisciplinary medicine that has solution for every individual case and seeks to foster health and wellbeing rather that fix patients. This, sadly, does not fit business models, and asks the medical establishment to rethink medicine which is unlikely to happen soon because of issues of hierarchy, influence, set thinking patterns (see Iain McGilchrist) … possibly lack of courage and sometimes lack of questioning oneself… . This are harsh comments but we are dealing with the health of people and the planet (farming)….
The main reason that I would not consider the option of assisted dying is that I can’t be certain that what awaits me after death is guaranteed to be any better than the experience of terminal illness.
I suspect that most advocates of assisted dying believe that death brings a complete cessation of consciousness. Others, influenced by universalism or folk religion, may assume that we go to some kind of cosy afterlife where we are reunited with lost loved ones.
But what if fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are right and those of us who don’t embrace their theology are headed for eternal damnation? In fact (spoiler alert) the conclusion to Stephen King’s novel ‘Revival’ is that ALL of us end up in some never-ending post-mortem hell.
Without the certainty of what comes next I will cling to this life come what may.
You are of course entitled to your view, but for most people, “clinging to life with bare knuckles because the afterlife might be horrible” doesn’t seem a sensible option. After all, however horrible it might end up being, you will be there soon enough.
Quite. What a choice – to cling onto life living in fear. No thanks.
One only has to look at the degradation of society in Canada and Oregon in the U.S., among other places, to rethink euthanasia and its implications. Otherwise no one is having an honest conversation about it are they.
In Canada, people 70+ going to the hospital for various non-life-threatening conditions are saying they are being asked if they want to be killed by medical staff.
The key to me is “asked”. When I am that age, I am hopeful that I will be made aware of “assisted dying” options, in case I need them.
Arguments advanced for euthanasia always seem to rely on the fear and ignorance of the audience. Emotional appeals replete with “imagine if” anecdotes shouldn’t be the primary basis of forcing cultural change. What we need to continue to address is high quality end of life care. When done properly by skilled compassionate providers it truly works for the patient and loved ones.
Be careful what you wish for Britons. I once thought that we could contain the Euthanasia Monster once we released it into the wild.
https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/assisted-suicide-suffering-and-slippery
Voluntary euthanasia can be authorised either already by one doctor over the phone in Australia, or it will be, in the not too distant future.
Spoofing phone numbers, impersonating people over the phone have been trivial crimes by 2015 as I was forced to learn in Melbourne, and AI is coming. I never even dated the stalker ex-coworker.
Any punishment is after the fact.
The dead will stay dead.