In the public interest?

john east

I love you dearly Melanie, and agree with much you say, but when you get it wrong you get it spectacularly wrong.

The bottom line here is that this guy chose to die. You should butt out and respect his wish.

peter

You re right.

Legitimising the killing of human beings is deeply troubling.

Except when you use "Targetted Assassinations", which are much the best way to put problem people out of your misery.

Interestingly, the IDF is far best targeted assassin, so why don't you have a chat with all your chuckle chums over there and write an article about that?

Dixon

Im not sure how to interpret this piece. Perhaps thats appropriate to the "grey" area of "ethics" it addresses.

However, as I do not believe there are such things as "ethics" or "morality" I am not so discombobulated by the perceived "greyness". I only look on it in pragmatic terms. Our society would be a much better place if fewer people entered it and more left early. To this end, it would be great if everyone who ever contemplated suicide were obliged to carry it through.

Frankly, I side with Sophocles who said "The greatest fortune would be to have never beeon born". Aside from a few episodes in my life when reason was obscured by the giddyness of Earthly success, I can say I have always wanted to stop having to continue living. I simply havent an easy and reliable method to accomplish this, painlessly, certainly and without hesitation.

And this is when Im not paralysed. I live in dread of being rendered paralysed by an accident. Its all very well refrring to "mercy killing",but what of those of us who have absolutely no family and therefore noone to extend to us that act of mercy?

Far from "barbarism", euthanasia would be a step toward that enlightenment which I consider to be found only in true nihilism.

Ed

If the DPP intends to appply these principles consistently, and there is no reason to be believe that he - or his office - will not, then assisted suicide has effectively been legalised, for purposes of UK law, and can now be done here. So no need any more to go to Switzerland.

It's only a matter of time before its offered by the NHS.

Susan Hill

Melanie, you and a practising Jew, I am a Christian and therefore we both believe 'assisting the death of another' or however you like to put it, to be morally wrong. I do not actually know the Moslem belief on this one - I should look it up. But the fact is that we are in a minority in that most people in this country now are not believers in any religious or moral code and so we enter the area of personal choice. A person chooses to take their own life, for their own reasons. I am always saddened that they could find no other way but am respectful of their decision. And on the whole, suicide is not infectious, it is not something likely to increase in general because it may be regarded as acceptable. Assisting in the death of another, for whatever reason, is very likely to increase if it is allowed in law and by general consent. And that would be disastrous because it would indeed give freedom to murder. Easy for a relative to say they were asked by Granny to 'help her die' Easy for a carer, a nurse, a doctor, whoever might benefit from the will, a nursing home attendant - anyone. Too easy. Most people who agree to help a loved one die do so out of compassion because the burden of life seems to have become intolerable and it is very hard to stand by and watch extreme suffering. That is now. But the moment the law is eased, when will bearable suffering for which effective palliative care might be found, be deemed 'unbearable' in the eyes of others ? When will old age alone become 'intolerable.' ?
I have seen the effect of suicide upon families and they are devastating - far far more than the effect simply of a death and they continue and they do not lessen with time. I have also known one family who took a relative to a Swiss clinic. They and the relative were so traumatised by what they actually found there - as against what they had fantasised about - that they fled and the relative died over a year later, cared for and pain-free in a Hospice. The family have never ever forgiven themselves or got over that trip and they live with the guilt of what they almost did - note that, 'almost' - every day. They speak about it to very few. They feel ashamed and their consciences are burdened. Imagine how they would have felt had they stayed and watched the relative be murdered, being themselves party to that murder. Because make no mistake, although technically the glass of lethal fluid is swallowed by the person voluntarily, this is murder.
It would be perfectly possible for the judge to have expressed great compassion and understanding and given a suspended sentence. That gives the correct message out.

jordan

No sympathy for fools, justice must be applied equally. Undermining the law is detrimental to its existance.

Ronnie

And what, exactly, is there to be gained from a public prosecution of Daniel James's parents?

I should think that the pain of their endless, daily, self-prosecution is far greater than anything our courts could do to them.

Their 'case' certainly does not require them to be made an example of. How dare we intrude in this way!

phil

Melanie all the words in the world will not help a person who is facing an awful death or even a life of perpetual misery -like a young paralysed person -It is hard for us ,it is much harder for them and so I believe we must accept that a person needs help to put and end to an untenable life .

.It goes without saying that safeguards are needed because we know there are wicked people about ,but it must not be beyond our capacity to find a sensible and compassionate set of rules with which we can be "comfortable" -I have never had much time for those that will not let their religious rules allow them to agree with this stance as it is not them who are doing the suffering -I saw my mum pass away, as many others have -she faced the last few months of her life suffering and knew she had no prospects of a better life -she lost her dignity and for such a proud and dignified woman that was a rotten way to finish her life -She told me she had had enough and what could I do ?nothing !

Our lives and ways evolve ,we don't hang people now for theft .were they right then ?-no answer needed -We must change our ways ,that is my interpretation of my own religious belief .kindness, compassion and a real care for others ,so I hope your moral maze will conclude something I can believe in .

Shaun Pilkington

I have relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Mine seems aggressive but there's no guarantee that I'll end up completely crippled. It is, however, foreseeable that I may end up with diminished cognition, trapped in an entirely unresponsive body that is subject to both immobility and phantom pain. I have the neuropathic pain already but cannabis, of which you disapprove, provides relief from that where the only 'legitimate drugs' in the words of my GP would leave me a vegetable. I work, still, as a web developer...

If the time comes where I am unable to interact with the world, unable to move, have difficulty or am unable to speak, am possibly blind, what right does anyone have to say that I can't kill myself? And why should my inability to move or see, to physically take the steps needed to end my own life, stop me from being allowed to end my life?

Andre

What message does this send suicidal teenagers like those recently in the news in south Wales? It's all right to take your life, if you've had enough? You be the judge? It's yours to do as you like with. Life is sacred, a gift of God. Atheism cannot absolve one of this responsibility. It only make the murderer - for that's what you become - seem more unbalanced than before. Thou shalt not kill.

Shaun Pilkington

"What message does this send suicidal teenagers like those recently in the news in south Wales? It's all right to take your life, if you've had enough? You be the judge? It's yours to do as you like with. Life is sacred, a gift of God. Atheism cannot absolve one of this responsibility. It only make the murderer - for that's what you become - seem more unbalanced than before. Thou shalt not kill."

So I, with MS, should be condemned to live for an indefinite period potentially imprisoned in an immobile, unfeeling, unseeing husk, subjected to periodic or constant neuropathic pain just because YOU, not I, believe in 'God'? Really? Nice!

Ronnie

Tell us, Jordan, who makes the Law? How does it evolve? What is it for? Who does it serve? Is it blind?

Dixon

Andre
December 10th, 2008 7:25pm
"What message does this send suicidal teenagers like those recently in the news in south Wales? It's all right to take your life, if you've had enough? You be the judge? It's yours to do as you like with. Life is sacred, a gift of God. Atheism cannot absolve one of this responsibility. It only make the murderer - for that's what you become - seem more unbalanced than before. Thou shalt not kill."

Andre, your words do a good job of making life sound like an onerous burden, in fact existential imprisonment.

I repeat, I reject it. Buddhism acknowledges the ideal condition as non-existence. Your putridChristianity stinks. Like life itself. It has nothing to do with my life but life ITSELF, or rather, obligation to eternally HAVING EXISTED that I reject.

My message to suicidal teenagers would be "defer it until the right circumstances", which is essentially what I have been doing for more than 30 years. I am in no doubt that unless someone else offs me first, I shall take it upon myself to express my disapproval of The Creators "work" in that ultimate fashion, eventually.

Meanwhile, Susan Hill says suicide is not contagious. Actually, it is possible that it is. Statistically, there is evidence that a well-publicised suicide is followed by an increase in other suicides. Moreover, well publicised multiple murder-suicides are followed by incidents in which multiple deaths occur due to human "error" in such accidents as airplane and coach crashes. There is a hypothesis that pilots, drivers, etc are unconsciously committing suicide and taking their passengers with them.

Dixon

jordan
December 10th, 2008 6:13pm
No sympathy for fools, justice must be applied equally. Undermining the law is detrimental to its existance.*

This is a statement of such utter crassness that I believe it must be the offering of a troll.

EC

Everybody - Do you really expect to die in perfect health? To cease upon the midnight hour in no pain upon fresh linen? How about degradation, squalor and pain?
How lucky do you feel?

Palliative care only works in ever increasing doses. There comes a point where the patient must be allowed the free choice say "goodbye" and not be forced to suffer because of someone else's beliefs.

Phil, Well said! A very moving post that strikes a chord with my own experience and I'm sure that of many others.

Joe Strummer

I've always been against euthanasia, assisted suicide, call it what you wish, due to no matter the honourable and noble intentions of some to alleviate human suffering it will also invariably be abused by the unscrupulous for numerous reasons.

It is a horrible, heartbreaking situation to witness, my own brother being a sufferer of a chronic, terminal medical condition. But to deliberately kill him ? Because that's what it is in stark terms. No thanks.

Robin

This is a difficult one and whilst my own Christian beliefs lead me to be adamant that legalised killing (call it what you like) is completely wrong, I accept others may differ in their views.

Interviewed for BBC News, Professor Lady Linley said "This programme is broadcasting something which is very private, which is someone dying and which is illegal in this country. I think it also perpetuates a myth that, somehow, to have a good death you have to end your own life and that is just completely untrue."

Her experience in helping those facing painful and certain death is far beyond anyone posting here, I suspect.

Joe Strummer - posting above - sums it up correctly, I believe.

Shaun Pilkington

And yet while all of your principled, often religious, objections to 'killing' are perfectly legitimate, why can you not engage with my right to choose to have my life ended as opposed to still having the capacity and right to end my own life?

Norm

Family doctors have for years assisted terminally ill people to die. My experience of a close uncle in agony despite injections of morphine convinced me that it happens. My aunt who was seriously distressed at her husbands agony begged the doctor to give him something. He duly gave an injection of 'something' and said he would return at 6pm. My uncle died not long after 6 to the relief of everyone there. The death certificate said heart failure. I don't want to judge the doctor but I think he did a good thing, others might disagree.

phil

Shaun Pilkington -I can think of nothing sensible to say except that I care and wish you well

Susan Hill

I would always hope to respect someone else`s faith or lack of it and I hope I can also understand and respect views of suicide and 'mercy killing' which differ from mine. But I absolutely cannot accept that it was right for a TV programme to show this dying and death or for those taking part to wish it to be televised. What possible cause could this have served ? Was it a form of propaganda ? Surely not. Can you imagine giving permission to have a dearly loved relative die before an audience of millions ? This should have been an entirely private situation and time and it has been made into an entertainment - for make no mistake, and especially given that it was broadcast on a satellite channel, this would be regarded by the vast majority who watched it as entertainment. It is very wrong to make voyeurs of television viewers in this way.
I thought that we, as a civilised society, had stopped allowing public executions some years ago.
Apparently not.

Scott

Melanie I too agree with most of your views but you have this very wrong. He wanted to die - for gods sake let him. I am shocked you think the parents should be procecuted. Can't you see it??

Dixon

Most of these instances arise only because technology has made it possible for people to continue in existence who would otherwise have died long before in any case.

If we project the trend forward, nearly everyone could be kept in a form of suspended vegetative state indefinitely, for years or even decades.

People who argue for obligatory existence invariably betray an immense lack of imagination. They are unable to "put themselves" hypothetically in the position that, some of them, may eventually find themselves in in reality. A situation which makes "erring on the side of caution" warrant the facilitation of elective suicide.

As for falling victim to an abuse of the facility, well so what! We all die inevitably. Only those who prattle on about the "sanctity of life" seem incapable of acknowledging this! Such is their lack of imagination.

Dixon

For example:
"Her experience in helping those facing painful and certain death is far beyond anyone posting here, I suspect."

News, Robin, we ALL face certain death! Cannot you get your head around that fact?

Augustus

In The Netherlands euthanasia has been legal under controlled circumstances for some years, but it has also continued to be the subject of intelligent debate nevertheless. The Christian belief that all life is sacred has, however, gradually been abandoned. Often suffering can be so severe, the majority say, that euthanasia is only humane, and therefore morally justified. Opponents, for they certainly exist there too, argue that doctors could all too easily abandon their sworn duty to preserve life and keep patients alive for as long as possible, and be all too easily influenced by pressures put upon them by next of kin. "Dad, don't you ever get the feeling that your life is really over?" etc.

Now, one particular nursing home over there, in the town of Amersfoort to be precise, has proved that those fears are justified. Implementing a kind of wishlist policy, it has recently announced to all its residents above the age of 70 that, should they suffer heart failure, or anything else which leaves them unconscious, they will no longer be 're-animated' unless they have expressed a prior wish to remain amongst the living. In those cases only will they receive emergency treatment by the medical staff. The others will simply be allowed to die. This proves, therefore, that once you go down the legal path of 'choice', i.e. the state allows you the right to be assisted to choose to die, it can lead to a situation as sinister as this. Presumably even the relatives of those Amersfoort residents have got so used to the Dutch law by now that they put up no resistance to such a ruling, and presumably simply say that if dad or mum wants to end it that way then its their choice and who are we to refuse them.

Must Britain eventually go down that heartless road too? It shows a mighty evil contempt for the dignity of human life, whatever your beliefs.

Herbert Thornton

I saw, some years ago, on TV, a short film of a euthanasia being carried out in Holland.

It was a dignified and gentle procedure.

It was clearly an act of mercy. It convinced me that to deny such a peaceful end to those whose suffering is prolonged or extreme is cruel - and thus wrong.

Indeed I go further. I also believe that in cases of the most extreme suffering, to withhold euthanasia is sadistic and evil.

Verity

John East addresses Melanie, with old world elegance, "You should butt out and respect his wish."

Excuse me, Mr Self-Righteous? How did Melanie "butt in"? Did she have the power to change anything, or was she merely commenting on events?

Can you understand that Melanie cannot "butt out" or "butt in" to a private affair?

Jerk.

Frank P

Is the National Health Service now so discredited that it cannot be trusted to care for terminal patients in their last hours and allow them to pass on with as little pain as possible? If you think that is so, then it is grossly unfair. Those who are clamouring to legalise the Euthanasia Industry with all the pitfalls that entails do a great disservice and deep insult to the thousands of caring staff who deal daily with these problems in a professional and sensitive way. There will always be sad and tragic cases; there will always be mistakes, but the law must protect the vulnerable from avaricious or cold hearted, uncaring relatives - and others who would organise death factories for gain, then encourage all dependent or disabled people to feel obliged to 'go quietly' for the sake of their relatives. The law must protect vulnerable patients from their own feeling of helplessness. The law must support them - not give others the right to kill them or collude in killing them - with or without consent.

As for the voyeuristic jackals who produced the latest descent into depravity with 'reality TV' tonight; they should be prosecuted and sentenced to five years of cleaning the latrines in a geriatric ward, but kept well out of sight of the patients. Sensationalist television of this type is both baneful and baleful – a deeply malignant societal disease in itself. On a night when awards were given to brave children who have faced terminal illness with great courage and selflessness they should feel deeply ashamed.

Life itself is becoming a terminal illness; society should encourage people to face up to their lot with fortitude; society should provide the facilities to help them in their time of dire need, not assist them to knock themselves off when the going gets tough.

Suicide is always the choice of the individual and is no longer an offence either to commit it or attempt to commit it. But it is the ultimate selfish and nihilistic act. If those who are ill haven’t the courage to wait for the touch of the Reaper because of misery or pain then they should do the deed themselves while they still have their own faculties; not involve others who love them and thereby inflict further unnecessary pain and guilt upon them. Melanie has argued her case logically above and, as usual, her logic is sound. I haven’t listened to The Moral Maze yet, but must do so later. Those who, in confusion, emotional pain, or a misguided sense of obligation, break the law should be treated with extreme sensitivity and mercy. So far that has happened when prosecutions have taken place. But if it is a given that prosecutions will not occur – because it is always ‘in the public interest’ not to do so, then the law becomes no longer a deterrent against those with malicious or venal intent.

The status quo is not perfect, but it's the best that can be done. And I speak as someone who has been diagnosed with incurable blood cancer, undergoing permanent chemotherapy; and who has also just nursed his wife through two major cancer surgery and 6 months of post surgery chemo under the care and love of the local hospital and Macmillan clinic. Life is precious. It isn’t easy, never was, but it’s all we have and it is fleeting. Every second counts. Do not go gentle into that good night … or encourage others to do so.

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/38.html

Frank P

Herbert Thornton

"It was a dignified and gentle procedure."

And so is the Bromptom mixture; it is the clinical solution that is lawful, the illegal solution is awful, both to perpetrate and to contemplate.

Doctors get little credit for their daily service to humanity; only the bad guys seem to get publicity these days.

Verity (1.48am)

I would second that except for your last word as I remember John East from TDA days and Melanie's erstwhile blog as a very thoughtful poster. I disagree with him this time though.

Gilbert Belwether

Euthanasia is much more common and indeed routine than many people in this thread seem to realize. I don't know the UK stats, but I've read that in the US one out of three deaths occurs by deliberate morphine overdose of the kind Norm described. Those who think permitting euthanasia would inevitably lead to moral breakdown should know that their local hospital probably commits more "mercy killings" (and generally without the patient's permission, moreover) than any Swiss clinic.

TomTom

Google "Action T4" and see how it started last time around

Andre

Shaun Pilkington
'why can you not engage with my right to choose to have my life ended'
Because you do not have the right to take life - any body's.

Vicky

Whilst I appreciate the reasons why people support the concept of euthanasia, I have serious concerns about the results of condoning or legalising it.

The following information is taken from the Christian Institute website and demonstrates clearly the issues at stake when euthanasia is practised.

Official statistics show that in 2001 there were 4,664 cases of medical intervention to shorten life in Holland, representing 3.3% of all deaths. Yet of these there was no explicit request for euthanasia in 938 cases. Thus 20% of all medically assisted deaths were involuntary.

Holland has allowed voluntary euthanasia for some years, but the Dutch Government has acknowledged that there is a serious problem with involuntary euthanasia. Furthermore, in 2004 the Dutch Government called for an investigation into the non-reporting of euthanasia by doctors. One study suggested only 54% of cases were reported in 2001.

Recently, a group of senior Dutch doctors formally reported themselves for killing 22 terminally ill newborn babies. They called for the Dutch Government to legalise infant euthanasia. This shows just how slippery the slope is when society accepts euthanasia is acceptable.

Teflon tillie

Verity you are an abusive ill-mannered haridan.
What kind of adult ends their post with "jerk"? Peter H, can nothing be done to discourage this?

phil

Teflon tillie-AT LEAST SOMEONE reads my posts -try some of the other threads this one was MILD !!!--.)

ANDRE THE COMPASSIONATE -what kind of sick mind can write to Shaun as you have done -one can only assume you are in the best of health ,perhaps when your time comes you may reflect on what you have said and pray to your maker that he will have forgiven you .

Shaun even if you do not "believe" ,this mans perception of God is that of a freakish fanatic -many of us have moved on to a more enlightened way of thinking than that of the desert people 6000 years ago .,and our thoughts are with you .

Ronnie

I totally agree with Phil and cannot allow Andre's self-satisfied and disgusting remarks to pass without comment.

I am reminded of the character Frodo in Disney's 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' A fool so self-perfect that the heartless judgement of others was second nature, in the context of a law untouched by the human soul.

As for Verity, well... Its how her brain works.

Frank P

Teflon Tillie - what kind of person begins her post with the assertion 'you are an abusive ill-manered haridan!' Similar, I suggest, to one who ends their post with 'Jerk! That is, one who is allowed to express their opinion freely on a blog, which is what they are for Tilly - and what John East, Verity, you and now me are doing. Long live pithy discourse. It is both entertaining and cathartic (imho - of course) :-)

An American

Shaun,
My best to you. I agree that when the times comes, you, or someone you have chosen, should have the right to end your suffering.
I believe that will be a comfort to you.
My hope for you is that you will let God into your life...to comfort and help you.

Shaun Pilkington

"Because you do not have the right to take life - any body's."

So then, Andre, one must assume you believe that suicide should still be illegal? And if not, why should being able to commit suicide turn on having the physical capacity to do it? If the decision you take is to end your life, why should it make a difference if you blow your head off with a shotgun or have a clinician provide you with the means to end your own life?

An American

Dixon,
I don't know your circumstances. But I'm saddened by your comments of hopelessness.
You are one of the more brilliant minds commenting on Melanie's writings.
I always look forward to your take on things.

EC

"The status quo is not perfect, but it's the best that can be done."

Is it? Doctors are in a very exposed position. Their treatment might be constrained by the thought of the police sitting on one shoulder and the relatives sitting on the other.

Would a compassionate doctor increasing the dose of pain relief knowing that it in all probability it would tip the patient over the edge be committing an offence?

A different type of unscrupulous money grubbing relative might seize upon this opportunity to sue the doctor - it has happened.

I do hope "they" can resolve the complicated issues surrounding terminal care and hopefully improve upon the status quo.

An American

Frank P
I agree with you. I don't agree with what everyone has to say here. But...for now...they have the right to say it.

As our societies turn into more socialist states, I feel more strongly about expressing my free speech. That's why I'm now blogging for the first time in my life.

I'm worried about what I'm seeing happen before my very eyes. We are losing our freedoms while this ever-creeping big brother takes over our very lives.

Keith

Dixon is being deliberately disingenuous by quoting Sophocles in favour of his nihilistic views. Sophocles did not say that, a character in one of his plays says it, not at all the same thing. Furthermore, given that Sophocles lived to be 90, at a time when life was extremely harsh by modern-day standards, it is unlikely that he agreed with this. Suicide was hardly uncommon in Ancient Greece (although it was condemned by many, including Aristotle), but the general Greek, pre-Christian, view was that life was a good thing. When Odysseus meets the shade of Achilles in the Underworld (Odyssey, Book 11), the latter tells him that he would rather be the humblest man on Earth than king of the Underworld. Consider also the myths of Alcestis and Demeter and Persephone.
There are many, many reliable ways of committing suicide. If a person is that unhappy, I think they will just do it rather than wait for the right moment. The fact that they don't suggests that they do not really want to. But, of course, it's very Romantic to affect wretchedness and weariness of life.

An American

Frank P
I agree with you. I don't agree with what everyone has to say here. But...for now...they have the right to say it.

As our societies turn into more socialist states, I feel more strongly about expressing my free speech. That's why I'm now blogging for the first time in my life.

I'm worried about what I'm seeing happen before my very eyes. We are losing our freedoms while this ever-creeping big brother takes over our very lives.

An American

Dixon,
I don't know your circumstances. But I'm saddened by your comments of hopelessness.
You are one of the more brilliant minds commenting on Melanie's writings.
I always look forward to your take on things.

Andre

My point, Shaun, Ronnie, Phil et al, is a very simple one: It is wrong to take human life, your own or anyone's, what ever the circumstances. Remember Dr Harold Shipman? How many did he help on their way? Making sure the armed forces and police understand this moral compass is challenge enough. Allowing assisted suicide is wrong - wrong because it leaves it up to us - and people like Shipman - to draw the line. No one has a satisfactory answer, to my mind, on the question of teenage suicide. Suicide should be criminalized certainly, repealing the offense was a bad error of judgment. Perturbed to learn I sound self satisfied - I believe in rational not emotive argument. For myself, personally I wish you well.

Shaun Pilkington

"Suicide should be criminalized certainly, repealing the offense was a bad error of judgment."

Why? What possible sanction would have a deterrent effect on someone prepared to kill themselves? How do you punish the dead? By not burying then in a Church of England graveyard? All this would do is show the law to be an ass, an unenforceable ass, every single time someone killed themselves.

But if suicide is legal, which it is, why should it be a right reserved unto the able-bodied? Why is the right to end your own life tied to your capacity to end it when in wider society we aim to ensure equality for the disabled?

Dixon

Re An American and Keith, nothing I have said should be taken as a reflection on my asessment of MY life, with which I am more happy than most...but rather regarding my opinion of lifein itself. Hence you have no need to either take pity on me ( although I appreciate your motives and kind words ) or to think I am affecting wretchedness.

On the contrary, much as Sophocles lived to be a good age, so I expect shall I, for as I mentioned in an earlier comment, my insistance is that I should express my disapproval of "The Creator" having "given" me life by choosing to terminate it, but not until I think the time suits me. This in response to such fools as "Andre". Hence my comment regarding suicidal teenagers, that they should "defer" the action, much as I have for more than thirty years. The point here being, firstly, that the worst way to dissuade them is to say "dont do it", secondly, that the one thing any Human can do to give a proverbial two-fingered salute to "God" is to choose death.

Incidentally, as far as being disingenuous, that implies that I attribute greater status to the opinion of a playwright than to other mortals, such as one of his characters. Sophocles elegantly expressed a view in those words whether he believed them or not. Moreover, whether he believed them or not is pretty much irrelevant, given that my point in citing them was to state that I do! Keith, you are responding to the form in which I am stating my views rather than the views themselves. If I had used that quote without citing its author, would you not have piped up to say that it was actually Sophocles who wrote it!

Sergey

Assisting with suicide is not a killing - it is just assisting in voluntary act. If suicide itself is not a crime, why assisting this not-crime is a crime? Arguably, suicide is a sin; but this judgement is purely subjective, depending on one's religious belief, and thus cannot be a matter of a legal norm. Religious or moral norms are often more restrictive than legal norms, but at least they have not coercive power behind them. So legal norms are necessary less restrictive than moral or religious ones, and most commandmends are not legally enforceable. That is why we need legalization of euthanazia: to prevent abuse of this already established custom and to protect doctors and relatives who practice it. "Necessary hypocrisy" does not gave this protection and this distinction of cases when euthanasia is justified and when it is not.

Dixon

Augustus says:
"Now, one particular nursing home over there, in the town of Amersfoort to be precise, has proved that those fears are justified. Implementing a kind of wishlist policy, it has recently announced to all its residents above the age of 70 that, should they suffer heart failure, or anything else which leaves them unconscious, they will no longer be 're-animated' unless they have expressed a prior wish to remain amongst the living. In those cases only will they receive emergency treatment by the medical staff. The others will simply be allowed to die. This proves, therefore, that once you go down the legal path of 'choice', i.e. the state allows you the right to be assisted to choose to die, it can lead to a situation as sinister as this. Presumably even the relatives of those Amersfoort residents have got so used to the Dutch law by now that they put up no resistance to such a ruling, and presumably simply say that if dad or mum wants to end it that way then its their choice and who are we to refuse them.
Must Britain eventually go down that heartless road too? It shows a mighty evil contempt for the dignity of human life, whatever your beliefs."

It sounds like a sensible system to me.

I would go further. Why "resuscitate" anybody? Anywhen. Whatever their age.

Dixon

Indeed, I have latterly decided that the preoccupation with extending life is a gigantic error. Maintaining the quality of life is the proper use of medicine. Surely.

Today, a pittance is spent in the UK NHS on psychiatric care, although mental illness directly affects a quarter of all people at some stage and indirectly affects almost everyone. Meanwhile, utterly collossal sums of money are squandered on replacing the organs of people who destroyed their own through self-abuse ( eg, George Best, and what a disgusting spectacle that episode was ). Frankly, such "therapy" didnt exist when the NHS was created and its time we took a first-ever look at what purpose it actually serves.

Are we heading to a future in which people exist for the larger part of their life in decades of vehetative decline, kept "alive" by ever more ingenious and perverse technology? Would you want to live forever as the kind of semi-aware "immortals" depicted so prophetically in one episode of Gullivers Travels?

Dixon

Although I risk boring everyone, with my repeatedlypopping up, I must float this "thought experiment".

Think of the thing you most enjoy in the world. Now imagine doing it FOREVER. Does it seem possible that it would remain appealing?

Hence, I cannot conceive the possibility of a notional "afterlife" in eternity being desireable either.

I think those "Eastern" religions that believe the goal in life is to ESCAPE existence are absolutely right.

Not that that makes me any fan of the Dalai Lama.

Ronnie

Andre, Shipman murdered an astonishing number of people who did not want to die. That is obviously wrong. He did not, apparently, want to commit suicide until after his conviction.

The armed forces do not, by their nature, understand your point as their entire purpose is to kill in the perceived national interest.

As Shaun says above, there is no effective legal sanction against people who kill themselves.

I agree with you that it is wrong to kill but I take that to mean others. I believe that what one does with one's own life, under extreme circumstances that others may not be able to imagine, is one's own affair. I can't judge others in situations that I have not yet experienced but I can show compassion to loved ones who become involved.

Academic/theological point, Andre. If there is an afterlife, why is there a need to cling to this one so vehemently?

Sanctimonius Maximus

Dixon: "Not that that makes me any fan of the Dalai Lama"

Please do enlighten us. What do you think is wrong with the Dalai Lama? He is reportedly quite enthiastic about modern technology and might well read this blog. Get it off your chest and save yourself the cost of the postage to Dharamsala!

Ronnie

Frank P, '...That is, one who is allowed to express their opinion freely on a blog, which is what they are for...'

How refreshing, well done Frank.

Ronnie

Dixon, are you saying that the 'goal' of Buddhism is to escape existence?

Dixon

Ronnie, I dont know enough about Buddhism to state that as doctrinal fact, but it is an interpretation that I place upon it. As you can imagine, I dont subscribe to the letter of any doctrine. Hence the Buddhists extreme respect for life is not something I can endorse.

However, even within Buddhism thare is no absolute consensus on that. Hence the one time Buddhist geurilla army of Viet Nam, the Hoa Hoa ( prponounced wha ho ). They certainly do not deny the option of suicide in poltical protest, as evidenced by the occasional self-immolation of their monks. Nor do I think the actions of Buddhist "protestors" in Burma indicate pacifism. Like most credos, there are interpretations and interpretations again.

Frank P

EC

Despite disturbing cases such as Beverley Allitt, Dr Shipman or Dr Bodkin Adams (remember him - he escaped conviction) etc., the medical profession copes reasonably well; I'm not sure that any responsible doctor has been prosecuted or sued for upping a dose to relieve pain in extremis and hastening departure as a result. Worst-case scenarios don't make good law anyway and at the moment I get very nervous when people want good preventative laws repealed so that they can facilitate very radical and cultist beliefs. The 'Dr Deaths' of this world are weird and Baroness Warnock recently went well OTT. Bizarre! Legalising death factories to expedite the disposal of very sick people is very radical in my book. And before anybody cites some hospitals that have become death factories per se, due to piss-poor management, lack of hygiene and a lack of regard generally for their patients; then the law already exists to deal with those eventualities an should be vigorously enforced. And politicians should stop using the NHS as a political weapon to employ against opposing parties and find a compromise on how to fund it and make it more efficient. But that will run an run, regardless of the euthanasia issue.

Andre

Ronnie, Shaun, Two points: I sympathize with the 'law is an ass assertion,' I understand that. It used to criminalize suicide to show the act itself was wrong. Attempted suicide that was unsuccessful but came to the attention of the local constabulary was what landed you in court. I don't know about CofE graveyards never having resided in one. As a catholic I understand the teaching of the church is that you must be of unsound mind to commit suicide and can therefore be forgiven. Some of the arguments here are so cogent I am rather concerned as to whether this will always hold up. The theological point about clinging to this life is that God gave it you and only God can take it away. While I believe the scripture, 'eye cannot see nor ear discern the wonders I have prepared for those who love me' - I'm quite happy to take his word for it for as long as possible. Please don't take anything I say as judgmental - I really have no idea how I'd bear up under the knowledge of terrible illness or disease. I feel these points have to be made because our society and our nation is adrift upon a sea of moral vacuity. The political class under which we travail seeks merely to manage and not to offer moral leadership. This troubles me very greatly. They are not to be trusted with our money, our defence, our education or in the final analysis with our lives.

Shaun Pilkington

That's great Frank P, and I agree that Warnock's assertion that people should kill themselves to spare a resource cost to the NHS was outrageous.

However, what is your solution to people who may not necessarily be in pain or likely to die from their condition (such as Debbie Purdy or myself) who find their existence a torture beyond enduring, who can't interact with the world and who desperately want to die but lack the physical capacity to kill themselves? Why do you say nothing as to their actual, demonstrable suffering as opposed to the murder victims of Shipman et al?

phil

.Sometimes exaggeration is the only way to get attention so I WILL DO THAT BY ASKING ALL OF YOU WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEF of any kind ,what would you do if seeing a person in awful pain that no drug could relieve,begged you to put them out of their misery .would you stand by your ethics and let that person stay without help? this has happened on the battlefield .

Thank goodness we are never tested that way .,but we are asked to give our opinion here in more gentle circumstances .so I suggest all of you to listen carefully to the cry of anguish from Shaun ,it is he who is suffering not you and not your desire to not compromise your interview with your maker .

I WOULD NOT WISH TO MEET MY MAKER WITH THE DECISION THAT I DUCKED OUT ON MY CONSCIENCE.

Shaun Pilkington

I should add, Phil, that I'm not suffering. I'm relatively well and am still working, still married, still paying my grotesque mortgage. But there's no guarantee that I will remain this capable forever and I am a firm believer in fighting to keep my options open. I'm no stranger to pain but I know that the kind of immobilised living death at the scary end of potential outcomes is more than I could take. So rather than fight later, when I would almost certainly lack the energy and cognitive wherewithal to do it, I make my arguments now. In the hope that I won't have to use that option at all. The science in MS is promising in the medium term; Neurology has been weaponised from around March so now doctors, weapons firms and neuro-economists are all making enormous progress on understanding the brain. Even if MS isn't cured, a cybernet Central Nervous System is on the cards, potentially eliminating that fear of paralysis. But if all the science and technology and optimism fails, I simply want the right to end my life at the time where by definition I'd be unable to do so myself.

Frank P

Shaun Pilkington

I'm suggesting that every effort must be made by society to help them and their families to get through their heartaches and hardships invloved; if you're suggesting that the only answer is suicide and the involvement in others in that suicide, then as I said in a previous post, you are doing a great injustice to hundreds of caring nurses and doctors who deal with these issue every day and bring comfort and practical assistance to the afficted. If I ever reach that level of cynicism, I know a deserted cove where the waves lap gently. But that would inconvenience other people too. So perhaps the other option is better - time and tide has a way of resolving all these problems. Even Gordon Brown will pass, though I confess that's perhaps a little optimistic at this moment in time.

Augustus

Dixon, the thing my wife appears to enjoy most in the world is shopping, and given half a chance would indeed want to do it 'forever'. (ha!Ha!)

Regarding your comment about my previous post, it appears that what the Dutch home implemented sparked off quite a fury over there, not only among the residents and their families (the next of kin hadn't even been told about the letter which the 70 plussers had received), but also in parliament where questions were asked, a statement by Mrs Bussemaker (socialist Minister of Health) that an inspection of the home would be made, the outcome of which was, apparently, that the home decided in the end to continue to recuscitate everyone. So a bridge too far, even for them? But the fact that it was done at all, and so surreptitiously, shows there are dangers, whatever you personally may think.

Shaun Pilkington

Frank P: I am suggesting that I can conceive of an imprisonment, a loss of freedom so profound, that no amount of well-meaning nurses or palliative-bearing doctors can ameliorate it. It is from this kind of circumstance that I would want to escape. I am a cynic but I am also a fighter - with my disease, for my treatment (don't get me started on the NHS!) and for my right to say 'enough' should the time come. So even though cynical, I believe strongly in fighting for what one believes in. Oh, and unless you're heading to a wheelchair-accessible cove, I might be out of luck... But yes, Gordo will pass! And with my vote driving on whoever is best placed to toss out his lackeys down here in Newhaven (Lewes)!

phil

Shaun Pilkington -our man frank is brave and boastful -now !

-who does he think will take him to his cove if he cant get there -I wish him no harm but I do wish he would shut up when he patently has no idea of how you feel .I have said above that I have no solutions but having been in a lousy place myself ,thankfully some time ago ,I do know that it helps to learn other people care .I think many here would join me in wishing you well and hope for science to provide a cure for you -I will take the flak SHAUN for being a soppy fool but dont worry there are many of us .

Shaun Pilkington

I dunno Phil - I get it: life is inherently precious and is to be enjoyed, to be cherished. Its because of that that I have come to the conclusions that I have - I enjoy living, but its the aspects of living I enjoy (free action in the world, moving around, seeing new things) which are directly under threat and which I would rather not live without. As a 'cripple', I would not wish to be arbitrarily executed by a Nazi-esque regime because of it. So I understand the anti-eugenic fear that underlies their basic position, moreso if like Andre its motivated by a religious belief that suicide per se is wrong. I do, however, want our democratic state to acknowledge my decision as to when enough is enough.

phil

Shaun I do not believe that any religion means that we should abrogate our conscience and souls -I also believe that I know right from wrong without reference to some good book

Those that have religion have no answers to the millions of wonderful people who lost their lives during the second world war and similarly they have no answers for you or any others who are taken before their time -most critics are just scared to meet their maker having broken the rules that they were given by men -not GOD -

Sins cannot be forgiven by humans but they can be minimised by those that are affected as sinner or sinned against -Your thoughts do not sin against me ,it is your own family and friends you have to make your peace with and we can only support you .Meanwhile have a long and healthy life, science is progressing fast and maybe we will smile about these discussions much later .

Shaun Pilkington

Phil: a lot of religions have an absolute bar on suicide and species of Christianity such as Catholicism put a special emphasis on suffering such as this as a 'test from God'. But its okay as for what it's worth, I forgive them for, in the alleged words of Jesus, 'they know not what they do'... I don't really care who I 'sin' against in those terms; I live my life according to my own moral principles of harm-avoidance where I try to hurt or harm other people as little as possible while carrying out my core functions. Very 'conservative' in that regard - other people have no right over me so I shouldn't sh*t in their cornflakes either! So I don't see who I harm by choosing to die. Provided those who assist me are not coerced against their own choices, there shouldn't be a problem.

EC

Frank P,

I agree with you about death factories and about the NHS. If the NHS isn't up to the job then where did all the money go? With regard to THAT program, I chose not to view it. Beats me why anyone would want to.

The case that came to mind was this one

This guy also made a lot of money as a property developer building his local health centre "for free" on the back of it.

Whenever money is involved I always fear the worst as the vultures gather

I do find this case disturbing. Exploiting a Shipman bandwagon?

Ronnie

Phew, Dixon, you had me worried there.

The whole point of Buddhism, each school and particularly Zen, is to be an integral part of and to profoundly experience 'existence'. It professes the exact and total opposite of escaping.

I don't know what you mean by 'extreme respect for life'. There is life, all life, and then it ends. Nothing extreme about that.

Ronnie

Andre, you are right about our living 'in a sea of moral vacuity'. The fact that you could watch a man die on television last night proves it.

But there is still right and wrong and, within the context of your own faith, I think you should have another, closer, look at the Gospels.

Frank P

EC

I didn't watch it either but as all the newscasts from Sky and the BBC gave it full coverage it was difficult to avoid the gist of it. All that mendacious twaddle about 'public interest': it was a salacious coup; the only question that remains is who was manipulating who? Snuff movies are the new porn, it seems.

As for the cases you cite, I agree. And if the true statistics of murder in this country were made public it would solve the 'Global Warming' problems soonest as a chill settled over the minds of the credulous. The very old and the very young are extremely vulnerable. As for the unborn young, they are slaughtered in the droves for expediency, as we all know in the engineering of Gramsci's new society.

Shaun Pilkington

"As for the unborn young, they are slaughtered in the droves for expediency, as we all know in the engineering of Gramsci's new society." And still Frank P, you ignore the plight of those in my potential future situation, alive but imprisoned. Abortion is a different story - this isn't at all about terminating a life without consent, without consultation, this is about a consenting adult choosing to die but needing assistance. If you wilfully refuse to see the difference between that and between exterminating the unborn then you are being deliberately obtuse!

Ronnie

Frank P, you must be Antonio Gramsci's biggest fan.

Without a care for context or relevance you throw him into every thread. Are you on commission?

Dixon

Ronnie: "I don't know what you mean by 'extreme respect for life'. There is life, all life, and then it ends. Nothing extreme about that."

I mean, for example, brushing the footpath in front to dust aside insects so that one doesnt accidentally tread on them! Thats pretty extreme.

However, the Zen paradigm that you refer to is awareness, yes, but in the absence of ego, being, soul, or any individual identity. Perception, with, nonetheless, non-existence of "self".

I have no respect for life whatsoever. Hence the views on foreign policy that I may have hinted at on here.

So I am not about to endorse Buddhism. Let alone the Dalai Lama.

Dixon

Ronnie
December 11th, 2008 8:58pm
"Andre, you are right about our living 'in a sea of moral vacuity'. The fact that you could watch a man die on television last night proves it.
But there is still right and wrong and, within the context of your own faith, I think you should have another, closer, look at the Gospels."

If you choose to submit yourself to religous doctrines then you can say there is "right and wrong". But objectivelty speaking, there is no such thing as "morality". Only the rules we create to order our existence.

Atheism is not the only alternative to submission to God. It is possible to "believe" in some entity, in a non-descript, non-doctrinal fashion, whilst at the same time rejecting its worship as a collossal mistake. For whilst I dont believe there is such a thing as "morality" I DO perceive "good" and "evil" as metaphysical realities. Moreover, I perceive evil as embodied in the act of divine creation and all material things that are the work of the "creator".

It is the sense that "believers" are merely "sucking up" to an almighty tyrantt that I find most disgusting about the piously religious. Their prating about moral backbone in fact disguises an utter spinelessness in the face of creation.

Frank P

No Shaun, I was addressing EC's point and had moved away from your predicament as you seem to be hell-bent on 'assisted suicide', there is little more to be said; I've already expressed my opinion on that. You seem to believe that the world is all about you, and that your misfortunes are the only considerations that matter regardless of the effect that involving other people in your potential suicide could have on them. Or what opportunities would be provided for evil people to do dastardly deeds if the law is loosened. If you wish me to comment further, I would probably suggest that take additional medical advice about how your passing could be made less distressing, rather than organising a notional operatic type Gotterdammerung for your final exit. But you're obviously a person who doesn't need advice, so I will eschew the temptation, particularly as you seem to think that disagreeing with you on a point of principle is being 'obtuse'. As for my 'ignoring the plight of those in my potential situation' - does your condition induce dyslexia? I addressed it ad nauseum i several posts above.

We humans only see life through a glass darkly, which as a Pilkington you will no doubt appreciate.

I happen to believe, along with Voltaire, that 'His Sacred Majesty Chance decides all'.

The Grim Reaper already has infinite ways of making sure that individually we cannot live for ever; why add 'assisted suicide' to his list?

Conservative Cabbie

Shaun Pilkington

The dilemma I see in allowing assisted suicide is the possibility of the problems of pressure being applied to the ill family member either for financial gain (the will) or because the ill person has become too much of a burden. Can I ask, in your circumstance, would you be prepared to go to a court to request the right to die, assisted by either a family member or a doctor, This is the only way it seems, of finding a solution to the problem of legality. The law cannot stay as it is, how many patients decide not to go through with their plans for suicide because they are afraid that their relatives may be prosecuted? Similarly, the law cannot be drastically liberalised because of the problems I raised at the beginning. An independent arbitrator (a judge) seems to be the only way to go.

I think on the whole this has been a fantastic debate, in no small part due to your reasonableness. Whilst, not a religious person myself, I do tend to take the Christian position on the sanctity of life, however, I do believe that control over one's own life is our most important freedom and a person should be allowed to die with dignity, hence my support for your position.

Conservative Cabbie

To those of you who take the Christian position on this, that life is sacred. Can I ask a question. Please don't take this in anyway as an attack on your values which I respect greatly. Where does compassion fit in to your value set? Would you place the sanctity of life above your compassion for the suffering of others.

Again, I should reiterate that that is a genuine philosophical question, not an attempt to devalue your faith. I am genuinely interested.

Andre

Conservative Cabbie
Compassion - this goes right to the heart of the Christian conundrum. The problem Christianity has is that it is dealing with the pursuit of the absolute - God is absolute truth, absolute perfection. It thus becomes all too easy to make absolute moral judgments - do not kill ever. Despite this Christians down the ages have abrogated responsibility, setting out to kill in order to protect family, nation etc. Should we place the sanctity of life above compassion? Certainly any christian worth his or her salt has shouted and raged at God for allowing suffering, for not ending it sooner. Neither should we embrace suffering as some how refining. It's not; it's horrible. I remember John Paul II praying in his last few days not for deliverance from Parkinson's disease or indeed for a quick end, no, he prayed for 'the healing of my soul' When the compassionate roman soldier ran his spear straight through the side of Jesus as he hung upon the cross he realised Christ was already dead. God, who was and will be, had been first and gone on ahead. People like sound bite solutions. I cannot supply one. All I can offer you is John Paul's prayer and my own feeble wish that God may comfort the dying and and that in him they may find peace.

Shaun Pilkington

Conservative Cabbie: The mechanics of how it could work while providing safeguards against the potential kind of abuse Frank P is talking about would be complex. That said, I have often thought that I'd be prepared to go through, effectively, a trial before being allowed to have an assisted suicide. That way if the court decides I can't do it, nobody has to go to prison and I have the certainty that Debbie Purdy sought. Equally, you could have a cheaper system where you get 'permission' from your local Police who could investigate your position quite thoroughly with a view to assessing if it is or is not a coerced act.

Ronnie

Thanks, Dixon, for clearing all that up.

Frank Pulley

Ronnie

"Thanks Dixon for clearing all that up."

While I don't often sympathise with your politics, your succinct brand of sarcasm does appeal to my wicked side sometimes; yes, even when it's directed towards me. Pity that you seem to be here in general to undermine Melanie's indefatigable efforts to lighten the darkness; but as you don't seem to be having much success in that regard, your wit, at times, is worth a read: even though you're 'not English'. That brief and somewhat aggressive assertion (or confession, as I decided to interpret it at the time) explained a lot. :-)

Frank P

Ronnie

Btw - sri, I had missed your 10.19pm post when I reacted to your repartee with Dixon but I'm glad you noted my aversion to Gramsci and all his works - and all those who visit here to promote them covertly. That's one little rat I never miss an opportunity to shine a light upon, you're absolutely correct! I'm heartened though by the fact that even the MSM's low audio range is beginning to hear the skeletons rattling in the Chicago cupboard, too. Of course those of us with slightly more sensitive aural perceptors had already opined that the din was deafening. But I digress... back to release from that terminal disease called life.

Frank P

Ronnie

Btw - sri, I had missed your 10.19pm post when I reacted to your repartee with Dixon but I'm glad you noted my aversion to Gramsci and all his works - and all those who visit here to promote them covertly. That's one little rat I never miss an opportunity to shine a light upon, you're absolutely correct! I'm heartened though by the fact that even the MSM's low audio range is beginning to hear the skeletons rattling in the Chicago cupboard, too. Of course those of us with slightly more sensitive aural perceptors had already opined that the din was deafening. But I digress... back to release from that terminal disease called life.

Ronnie

Don't worry Frank P, your aversion to Gramsci is well noted. I'd just like you to note that he didn't write about everything under the sun and that his methodology (not his ideology) has been used by both left and right - most notably by Karl Rove. That is because it is very effective and successful.

I welcome, at last, this opportunity to chat. I don't come on here to undermine Melanie. I have an enormous respect for her, her energy, her determination, her courage. I just disagree with her, often, and I don't think that's a crime.

I genuinely do hope that you haven't joined the serried ranks of those who believe that to disagree is to undermine. I do disagree with Melanie's take on many things but her ability to stimulate thought and debate seems to be unmatched.

Can you imagine how dull it would be writing on a blog where everyone agreed - awful. Its much more interesting when there are disputes, like on all the threads about the US election - very stimulating and informative and, dare I say it, funny.

I'll say nothing about the 'English' issue. Its nothing personal, its in the genes and you can blame John Motson.

As for Obama, as I said to An American, the tide will surely turn as it always does and then we will see. I can wait...

I assume we'll agree to disagree on most things but I hope we can also agree that sarcasm is certainly not the lowest form of wit, its a safety valve.

phil

Ronnie as always you are a breath of fresh air

Ronnie

Dixon, 'However, the Zen paradigm that you refer to is awareness, yes, but in the absence of ego, being, soul, or any individual identity. Perception, with, nonetheless, non-existence of "self".'

I've just read this again. You really have got it all wrong. Zen is not for soulless robots, you are not compelled to join but your description is completely off the mark.

Frank P

OFFS Ronnie, now you've activated phil again; I'm off!

He's like an untrained puppy acquired for Christmas - sniffing your leg, wagging his tail, expecting approval and a new basket even though he's just peed on the floor. And remember, he's not just for Christmas.

Before I go, I've never been in any doubt that Gramsci et alia have triggered many covert conmen across the political spectrum with both their methodology of infiltration, destruction, and the imposition of their own ideologies after the national traditions and institutions have been traduced. My apolitical outlook has always been a plague on all their outside brick Benghazis.

'Jasmine' has noted some great links on Melanie's latest thread about Alinski. Well worth reading.

Even though I still suspect you're an in-house mole (which derives from the time when the 'moderator' censored my replies to your own insults and continued to let yours through - one in reply to a comment that wasn't published), I'll keep an eye open for your future input; to see whether my original suspicions may have been misguided and a little harsh. As you say, "We'll see!"

But we're digressing again while others are doing their best to stop the government from legalising the legal formulation of a human knacker's yard in addition to semi-legalising contraceptive factories: i.e. the disposal of 250,000 or so, per annum, fully formed foetuses, via the 'toxic' waste bins of UK hospitals and Harley Street clinics under Abortion Act 1967 as amended by The Law of Unintended (?) Consequences Acts 1968 - 2000 et seq). Naughty!

And phil - don't even think about it, or I'll rub your nose in it and put you out in the snow; then if you pee ‘HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL’ (all in upper case) in the pristine snow, I’ll sell you to the Kit-e-Kat factory.

Ronnie

Ok Frank, you need to back off a bit. I know you are testing me.

Its nice to chat like civilised people but we are politically continents apart and that isn't going to change. This is only a truce.

I love the internet but I do not trust it as a reliable source of political information (much to a guy called wild rover's disgust). Any one can post whatever they want, whether accurate or not, and I try to keep sane by not following all the links on a topic until I can't get my head back through the hole. Real political information has many sides and angles.

I can't think what an in-house mole would do. I can't even understand which house you think I'm moling for. If I responded to a post of yours which wasn't published its either a coincidence or because I must be as sharp as a tack. The enemy is not actually around every corner, most people just breath in and out like you.

However, one of the great things about blogs is that you don't actualy have to care what people think of you or your motives. You can just contribute to the endless debate.

And, as Phil is easily one of the more decent people around here, you should lay off as your image is suffering.

Frank P

"you should lay off as your image is suffering"

Thank God for that - I was beginning to think I'd lost my touch. And don't be such a patronising putz - phil had it coming, as you well know. Unluckily for him my scroll wheel failed on this occasion; but I wouldn't want to come between a man and his dog - whatever turns you on! Personally I'm on the prowl for culture warriors - of any political colour. 50 years of watching the Long March at very close quarters makes one 'ornery. But - as the old saw goes, there's none so blind as those that get pissed on Vodka - except perhaps those who drink Asti Spumante and believe it's Champagne for the Brain.

But then, as you say, I'm not a nice person.

Dixon

Ronnie
December 12th, 2008 5:10pm
"
I've just read this again. You really have got it all wrong. Zen is not for soulless robots, you are not compelled to join but your description is completely off the mark.

How?

phil

frank p thanks for noticing me .the worst thing to happen to a person is to hear "Who" when his name is mentioned .

You have been a nasty old bugger ever since I started posting .probably because you want to impress your amour the not so fragrant one-I believe most will scroll quickly over you dependably unpleasant personality in order to read something of relevance .

you do not need to watch your foot ,I wouldn't waste my marker on such a silly old fool -
nevertheless happy Christmas and I HOPE YOUR SACK BRINGS YOU A LITTLE HAPPINESS TO SWEETEN YOUR NATURE .

Perhaps you will even find the decency on this thread to say something kind to Shaun before you leave us .

phil

Ronnie thanks for your kind remarks ,as for frank,s message .its like water off a ducks back or maybe pee off a dogs leg as he likes to put it .

I would feel hurt if someone I had respect for said something offensive ,but not by him or his amour .the less and less fragrant one ,who is markedly absent from a thread on morality .
Happy Christmas to you .

Shaun Pilkington

TBH I don't need anything kind saying to me. I'm arguing for the right to have my life ended should my disease place me in unconscionable circumstances so I expect a rough ride from well-meaning people who basically oppose suicide per se and cling to the strange belief that its only the law that stops us, as a society, from bumping off the old and sick for their money. No matter which side of the debate you come down on, you have to admire a country where the principle argument in this field is about protecting life versus quality of life. That's a debate worth having.

phil

Shaun it is people like you who could be hurtful to me,not frank , as you are proving what a truly decent person you are -I wish I could find it in my heart to be so forgiving of those who I find so heartless .Your opinions count for me because you are achieving that state of decency that I wish to inhabit -I saw it many years ago from others when I was at the bottom of my pit and it has been my ambition to get there too. I am not a religious freak ,just a pretty ordinary guy with a little compassion .
happy Christmas to you and your family ,and many more

Dixons Jeeves

Dixon
December 13th, 2008 3:53am
Ronnie
December 12th, 2008 5:10pm
"
I've just read this again. You really have got it all wrong. Zen is not for soulless robots, you are not compelled to join but your description is completely off the mark.

How?

Merseymike

The problem is the religionist view of life being 'sacred'. It isn't. It has been given to us ny no-one and so we should have absolute autonomy over whether we choose to continue it or not. There is nothing in the least valuable about suffering and no reason why we should force people to experience it if they choose not to, whether in the failed and incompetent so-called palliative care hospices, who are unable to control pain and exist largely to promote the religionism of their owners, or by the medical developments which give years in life but not life in years.

Its only a matter of time. Like most of what Melanie holds dear, its on its way out, and I welcome the final death of her sort of 'society'

Shaun Pilkington

"The problem is the religionist view of life being 'sacred'."

I'm an atheist and I do believe life is special. You can tell because it seems to be relatively rare in the universe and thus sentient life is even rarer and thus, I'd contend *more special!

"It isn't. It has been given to us ny no-one and so we should have absolute autonomy over whether we choose to continue it or not."

We do obviously have absolute autonomy over it as unless you are under some kind of special control you are free, physically to kill yourself any time you like. I'm arguing, via assisted suicide, for the right for someone else to assist me to end my own life which is a legally thorny issue when you consider the terms in which 'murder' and 'consent' as legal concepts are couched in the UK.

Frank P

Merseymike

Perhaps you would like to give us an outline of what should replace "her sort of society"?

Frank P

Shaun P

" ... and cling to the strange belief that its only the law that stops us, as a society, from bumping off the old and sick for their money."

'Strange beliefs' to one side, the law does not stop us from doing anything. What it does is proscribe certain acts, under threat of penalties if we perpetrate them. That deters some folks. Some people are not deterred and take their chances. Most agree to the rule of law and this goes some way to preserving civilised behaviour. We are a flawed species despite our 'higher intelligence' - a mixture of base instincts, self preservation, self interest, and exploititive opportunism, along with more positive and selfless traits in some circumstances. Many people are capable of highly moral behaviour based on the general tenet of 'love thy neighbour', others are not. All of us were born into a society that already existed; as newcomers we have to abide by the existing rules or enter the fray and try to persuade our fellow citizens to democratically change the rules if we think them unnecessarily restrictive. But society itself has to protect persons, property and basic rights and freedoms by the rule of law. To imply, as you do, that most people will refrain from evil acts without sanctions is an assumption without any evidence to back it up. Humanity has formulated rules with sanctions since we crawled out of the cave. On the other hand, the propensity for wilful violence and dishonest dealings has been proven in myriad ways. When it comes to murder for gain, or murder to remove incumbrance, it is a prevalent crime. Any further liberalising of laws that proscribe taking, or conspiring to take, the life of another except in war or in other necessary self defence would be a dangerous and retrogade development in civilisation. As for individual freedom, no man is an island. My own philosophy, for what ot's worth, is to make the best of what there is for as long as it is. After death non-existence is for ever, I am afraid, though others comfort themselves with the thought that there is no such thing as non-existence - but rather transmogrification in the hereafter. Neither you nor I, at this stage of evolution, can prove it one way or another; dust to dust ... ashes to ashes? Even that is debateable, but not a debate that I usually choose to participate in. I have found by experience that positive thinking, imagination and ingenuity ameliorate most gloomy prognosis. I heartily recommend it because nobody knows for certain what tomorrow will bring. Except of course that it is a given Gordon Brown will still be lying to his back teeth and pretending to reinflate his burst balloon.

Shaun Pilkington

Frank - You make some interesting points but with respect to 'positive and selfless traits in some circumstances', evolutionary biologists are doing interesting work in the area of co-operation versus competition and only last week it was announced that dogs have an in-built dislike for perceived inequality. As for the role of law and sanction in regulating behaviour, I accept that this has been the status quo for a long, long time. However, I do find it interesting that when it comes to things like dog training or modern child rearing, one is encouraged to pursue a path of 'positive reinforcement' whereby you reward behaviours you want to encourage and withold rewards for actions you don't. Punishment has traditionally been easier to administer but I often think that the Tax Credits scheme is an attempt to use our own money as a positive-reinforcement reward for things the state likes you to do (working in Tescos, having kids)...

Ultimately, though, what if comes down to under the 'no man is an island' view is that should I become paralysed and unable to interact with the world, rather than dying, you want me to take one for the team and keep suffering because were I released someone else *may* get killed.

phil

Shaun you are becoming embroiled in complicated discussions here of right and wrong ,together with interpretations of law -I am going to refer you back to the nazi guards and their bosses who claimed they were doing what the law required -They paid with their lives for not using their consciences and refusing to obey wicked laws .I know ours are not wicked but they need to be changed as laws have been over many centuries, as we have become more enlightened .

For us to tell a person who is suffering what is best for him and his loved ones is for me beyond reason .I had to see my beloved mother suffer and in my heart I knew it was wrong .Although I am not religious I am influenced by my early lessons and those lessons told me that I had a choice to go either way as I saw it right or wrong and that we have been given brains to use -I hope I have ,and I hope you will too -never mind all the esoteric advice ,do what your own conscience tells you

.
Any potential suffering you may endure will do nothing to enhance my life,it only would cause me distress that we couldn't change a ridiculous piece of legislation because we didn't try hard enough .

This may have been written in simple terms compared to what I have read earlier here .but it should not deter you from seeing a simple truth .

Shaun Pilkington

I know Phil but when you consider the horrors of the 30s and 40s, its quite understandable that people are very wary of going near that territory again. I just feel that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water as it cannot be beyond our wit and wisdom to devise a process that weeds out the dodgier cases and yet allows people genuinely suffering to shuffle off the mortal coil in accordance with their direct wishes. Regardless, it is important that the law is both clear and fair; my contention is that right now its neither, which is my Debbie Purdy brought her case - she wanted clarity as to whether her husband would be prosecuted for accompanying her to Switzerland, clarity the DPP lacked the courage to provide. The irony, if you can call it that, is that by not allowing her, or I, assisted suicide should we require it the law actually forces us to kill ourselves earlier than we otherwise would because we'd have to do it while we physically could and not when we psychologically could not take it any more which would, almost by definition, be later.

phil

Shaun I am sure you know I am not encouraging you to end your life ,thats the last thing I would want to do. I am hoping you will have a long and happy one and never feel the need to finish it .Nevertheless I understand the need to have the comfort for your family in the event of the worst case scenario. As my family would say live to 120 and hope the funds dont run out :)

Shaun Pilkington

No Phil, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to die, I don't want to have to kill myself. I'm lucky and can still walk, talk, feel and see (for the most part) and because I am a web developer, can work from home and am a relatively successful freelancer. As a techie, I monitor developments in MS/neurology research and am broadly optimistic for having some kind of future. That may be a trans-human future but I'll deal with that philosophical barrier if I get there - after all a wifi-CNS would mean my nerve impulses travelling at near light speed as opposed to the slow 75mp human nerves manage but will, with implants, restore mobility and function. So provided I can afford such developments and provided that they occur I intend to be around and arguing nonsense for a long, long time yet! But if I'm wrong, I'm simply saying that my right to end my own life (which you can dispute but suicide is legal at present) should not be ties to my physical capacity to perform the act, not least because its that lack of capacity which would be pushing me into suicide.

Frank P

Shaun

"you want me to take one for the team and keep suffering because were I released someone else *may* get killed."

Firstly, you are describing a 'worst case scenario' for the sake of hypothesis. Secondly, I'm not asking you to do or not do anything, as you wouldn't listen to me anyway.

"Suffering" is a relative term and it is a personal state of mind. I find different ways of dealing with that hypothesis, for example replacing positive thoughts with morbid ones; seeking help of the professionals who should be dealing with your state of mind and your pain should it arise. To change a reasonable law to satisfy individuals who suffer from deep depression and suicidal demands is what you're asking and I would vote against that. In my own case I have urged my relatives not to listen to me if ever I start making such unreasonable demands. But I would like them to make sure that those charged with the responsibility of making my last hours as comfortable as possible, to do just that. That seems reasonable. Tough love, maybe. But it's probably the best that the law can do. The moment that we abandon the principle that life is precious and must be protected and preserved come-what-may, unless your own life, or the life of others under your protection is threatened by those who would kill you, then civilisation disappears.

Shaun Pilkington

I am indeed describing a worst case scenario; as I say, medical advances and random chance may see my disease take a less severe course. The reason I argue now is because I am able to. I have to argue now for the things that should I need them, I'd be poorly placed to fight for. And while I take your point about depression, which can be a key part of MS in its own right, the reality is that if you are immobile and unable to interact with the world in any meaningful way, you've lost your income and so are probably festering in either a care home of state housing, what possible comfort could be provided? How would you have the boredom relieved when you can't feel or see? What possible care could you be offered, or indeed would be offered, to ameliorate that horror?

Frank P

It is extremely sad that you are not able to trust the doctors and nurses of the NHS to manage your illness. I can understand why, as I too read the horror stories of neglect and mistakes that appear daily. But rather than campaigning to change laws to accommodate nihilistic solutions to chronic and terminal disease, would it perhaps not be better to campaign for improvements to medicine and pharmacology? I know lots of dedicated people who are working very hard on behalf of sufferers of chronic illness and conditions that are so far incurable. They need resources and they need pressure to be kept on successive governments to be more focussed on dire needs of patients, rather than their own political ends, as they treat the NHS as a political pawn; or as a milch cow for lucrative contracts for their cronies who provide various dubious 'services' and technological gizmos that don't work, or are obsolescent before installation so that 'upgrades' can necessitate further contractual scams. Billions have been wasted in this way and will continue to be wasted. You are an articulate man and have access to the means of promoting such improvments with your knowledge of the internet. It's only a suggestion, but it could perhaps give you a new lease of life for the active years that you still have and would perhaps flush out some of the more negative thought processes. Lots of people, including my wife and I, who have had a great deal of help from loving staff dedicated to their vocation feel very sad when they all get tarred with the same brush. Just some thoughts to play with - particularly at this time of the year. And believe me, I'm not being polemical for once, I empathise, for many reasons of experience over the 70 odd years of my life, with those who become afflicted through no fault of their own. Much less though with those who clog the Health Services with self-destrucive life-styles that soak up so much time and money that could be put to better use. But then we're back to human fallibility or as some call it - Original Sin.

Shaun Pilkington

I'm lucky in that my PCT does provide Disease Modifying Drugs, state of the art stuff as well as the £8.5k/pa beta-interferon. The real problem has been the dearth of useful research due to the totally justified prohibition on human vivisection. All neurological disorders only became properly observable with the advent of MRI technology 20 odd years ago and accordingly our understanding of them, from MS to alzheimers, have improved markedly. Nanotechnology, genetic modification and all branches of stem cell research all hold out much promise with respect to treating the disease and cybernetic nervous systems with neural/muscular implants are a decade or two away which would remove the threat of which I am afraid completely. Neurology has also benefited from a huge level of military-industrial investment since around March 08 when someone in the US DOD woke up to the fact that mind reading machines would be cool and artificial nervous systems could work a treat for damaged war veterans.
I'm quite sure that there will be the usual unseemly fight with NICE and the PCTs for the resulting treatments but I'll be arguing for them as vociferously as I argue for my own right to die should these treatments fail or not materialise. The problem is that these treatments are likely to be horribly expensive and I'd be asking for more than 'my share' of NHS resources, as it were, should I seek to receive them but this, I feel, is a battle for another day. Don't get me wrong, Frank, I'm in no hurry to die. And I aim to keep fighting my corner up to the end, whether its for people in my position who lack the skills to argue effectively when it comes to treatment or for novel treatments (one of the earliest things you learn with MS, or pretty much and brain disorder is that it's ALL experimental medicine from this point out!) or, in the end, the right not to have to suffer.

Frank P

Well Shaun, I wish you success in those positive endeavours; keep up the pressure and keep your chin up. You obviously still get some satisfaction from chewing the fat like the rest of us around here; so I for one will look forward to your future posts and I'm sure you'll still be contributing long after I've reported for the Big Sleep. Is the rest silence? Have to say that given the cacophony of confusion, conceit, connivance and conspiracy that now permeates the planet, I hope so. But I'd still like to observe it all for as long as possible, albeit as a bosky in the bucolic barren broadlands of East Anglia - always supposing the bastards don't pave that over too, to expand their demographic electoral advantage!

Shaun Pilkington

Hell, Frank, that's the least I can do. Always been a fan of the 'Greatest Generation' phrase of KBO (Keep Buggering On). I've had my share of fights, some existential (with Islamists at uni back in 1994-5, way before it was popular and when MI5 categorically weren't listening), some political, some financial (well, who hasn't, eh?) and ultimately its the resolution to never give up that makes all the difference. I have not doubt that by grandfather's brother, and IRA General in the Civil War and latterly a Roman Catholic Priest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Pilkington . I firmly believe that the game is only over when you, as the player decide it is but I am a shrewd enough guy to know when the game is indeed up.

From my East Sussex (Newhaven) bunker, I salute you sir, as a principled opponent on what is, ultimately a matter of conscience in an age when so few have one at all!

Frank P

As this debate has now reached agreement to differ, perhaps the last word, so to speak, should be afforded to 'the doc is in' at:

http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/12/18/on-assisted-suicide/

who expresses my sentiments much cogently than ever I could myself.

Thanks to Gerard Vanderleun at American Digest for the link.

Shaun Pilkington

Interesting read.