Skip to content

Idiots

The time to die should be of our choosing
However difficult it is to legally protect assisted dying, we should still try

We’re not trying to protect legalised dying. We’re trying to protect illegal from dying performed under the pretext of legal.

15 thoughts on “Idiots”

  1. O/T, but another letter on that page mentions the ‘attractive, successful, articulate, non-white, young Meghan Markle’

    Is this a different one to the average, B-list, dim, lily-white, young (I’ll give them that) Meghan Markle?

  2. ‘ The time to die should be of our choosing…’

    I chose to die not before 2300AD becqusexI want to see how the global warming/climate change crap works out, and attend the executions.

  3. Try again. An edit function would be super.

    ‘ The time to die should be of our choosing…’

    I chose to die not before 2300AD because I want to see how the global warming/climate change crap works out, and attend the executions.

  4. Given that NHS doctors, when faced with the illegality of assisted dying have:

    1. Demonstrated contempt for the law with the “Liverpool Pathway” and giving “Do Not Resuscitate” instructions without patient or family consent and to this day, not a single doctor has been prosecuted for it.

    2. Enabled Harold Shipman (and probably others) in killing old biddies they didn’t like, simply because no-one (except a few rare coroners) were prepared to gainsay whatever bullshit they wrote on a death certificate when a doctor was in attendance.

    3. Shown a clear desire to off any number of “useless eaters” simply because we’re a dead weight on NHS resources and need medical support to get by. God help these “masters of the universe” when the become old, frail and brain addled.

    So, yes. Keep assisted dying illegal, otherwise the nonsense that has been enabled in Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere will happen here, by the bucketload at the hands of our not-at-all-glorious NHS.

    If that means that some small percentage having to travel to Switzerland to get access to assisted dying then that seems like a barrier to wholesale slaughter under the guise of our seldom caring NHS.

    …and that’s a good thing.

  5. ‘Having recently accompanied my wife to dignity’s’

    Does he then complain about the hassle of booking a one way trip for part of the group travelling, can be a real pain that one.

  6. @John Galt

    What you’re saying is that we have a system that doesn’t work, so we should keep it the same.

  7. What you’re saying is that we have a system that doesn’t work, so we should keep it the same

    No. What I am saying is given how they’ve murdered people under the current system where it is already illegal and gotten away with it, just imagine the butchery that they would commit if there was a legal excuse for their actions.

    @Jim – Yes, you’re right about Gosport. That such horrors can make newspaper headlines and nobody goes to Jail shows the problem of treating the NHS as something akin to a national religion. Nothing will change until the state run NHS is smashed to small pieces and the earth salted to prevent it rising again.

    A European style health insurance system would have delivered far better results than the bloated NHS with far fewer complications and lower cost.

  8. One of the main reasons why the current system kills people is that very many people believe that they would not want to be kept alive in various circumstances. Since, however, killing people (or letting them die through withholding food and water) is illegal, people are very reluctant to look too closely at dubious cases. The way to fix this is to provide a legal outlet for people’s desires.

    In some ways, it’s a bit like Prohibition – when there is a strong enough and widespread enough desire for something, the law cannot prevent it and futile attempts to prevent it will end up making things worse.

  9. I look at the same facts and ideas and end up at the other end. Yes, many people do worry about the way they’ll go. But the end of making it legal appears – Dutch and Canadian experiences – to be that the way to go gets imposed on people who don’t think that way.

    Which is why I’m in favour of the other way around. Yes, we all know that opiates are overused – overdosed – and so on. That DNR happens. But anyone who does that is subject, maybe, to having to justify not the general idea, not the morals, but their specific actions, in a specific case, in front of a jury, in a murder trial.

    The only way I can think of keeping the system on the right side of murder is to try it, in a court, for murder. Need not be every time, but once in a while will keep people thinking. That bloke who od’d a patient shrinking in pain (arthritis? Mebbe?) who was going to die within the week anyway. He was tried, found not guilty. Probably the right decision. But the occasional such trial would have made that Gosport doc think a bit more before offing 100. Would have made some a little less eager to consin to the Liverpool Pathway etc.

    That is, yea, we know it happens, we’re glad it does at the extremes too. And yet we want the terror of the law – given that no one believes in God any more – biting the arse of those who make such decisions for other people.

  10. The LCP proves that it happens a lot already. Everyone knows it happens and is illegal, so those best placed to notice when it happens inappropriately are in no position to make a fuss as it might draw unwanted attention to other cases that they have been involved in.

    An the occasional trial is completely wrong. Under a system of law, people should know in advance whether something is illegal – not have to wait until after the trial. Uncertainty means that someone who wants to die and needs help can only get that help is someone is willing to risk a long sentence. It should be set out clearly so that people can get what they want without having to rely on what is effectively charity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *