So I’ll try here to follow Michael Foot’s advice. Let’s acknowledge and confront the strongest argument against assisted dying. As (objectors say) the practice spreads, social and cultural pressure will grow on the terminally ill to hasten their own deaths so as “not to be a burden” on others or themselves.
I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it.
“Come on Granny, top yersel’, we want the money.”
Fuck off.
The parents of Matthew Paris must be proud. If they haven’t already taken the easy way out for shame.
Matthew fucking Parris. Whatever he says the opposite is true. It amazes me how these people can make a living about being wrong about everything.
It’s bad enough with the NHS trying to kill the elderly as it is now, without making it bloody legal.
Harold Shipman was ahead of his time. Ahem.
He said the quiet part loud.
«Is life still giving us more pleasure than pain? How much is all this costing […] the health service?»
It takes a demented socialist to anthropomorphize the state.
We all know how this pans out. ‘Assisted dying’ get passed subject to ‘strict controls’, 2 doctors need to agree etc etc blah blah blah. And then shift to 20 years down the line, anyone who turns up in a doctors office feeling a bit depressed – Wanna top yourself? Here, I’ll sign the forms……
Basically this idea that doctors want to take the role of societies moral arbiters over health issues is nonsense. We see it with sick notes, we see it with abortion, and it’ll be no different with assisted dying. They’ll just want you out of their office and stop bothering them, so they’ll sign whatever. And of course then there’s always the fact that if its just down to a doctor to decide then all you’ll need to do is find a doctor who’s happy to sign your life away. They’ll be one, especially for a fat fee. The medical ‘profession’ loves nothing more than money, so I’m sure this will be another nice little earner for some of the psychos who end up as doctors. Want to die? Go and see Dr De’Ath, he’ll sign you off, £1k, no questions asked.
Wow, the slippery slope from Remain to “Happy Easter, I’d welcome murder” is a real one.
Perhaps the non-reproducers, like Mr Parrish, should be culled as they have no stake in the future of the human race.
The cultures where it’s reported that granny topped herself to let the grandkids have a better chance were cultures of poverty and massively limited resources. Want granny not to feel she has to top herself? Get a thriving economy with enough for all.
Just in case anyone is under any doubt about who to vote for in the forthcoming general election:
Steve’s policy is that you should live as long as possible and be as rich as possible. And be able to say whatever you want and take whatever drugs you like.
Vote Steve for Relaxing Times.
Jim
“And then shift to 20 years down the line, ”
I’d give it 20 months, anyone remember the Liverpool Pathway?
They got rid of the name Liverpool pathway, but not the practice. Although when they midazolammed my father-in-law he was not too bothered about ending the pain and misery.
Ottokring said:
“Matthew fucking Parris. Whatever he says the opposite is true.”
Generally yes, but to my astonishment he was against lockdown, so occasionally he can be right (and that was a big one to be right about).
Oddly Rod Liddell was in favour of lockdown, although he later apologised; the Spectator was an odd read then.
@Arthur the cat: Not so, have we forgotten the disabled sportsperson in Canada (still nominally a First World culture) who complained about the length of time she had to wait for a chairlift and was asked if she’d prefer government-aided euthanasia instead..?
I was shocked recently by my wife, her brother and sister. Mother-in-law has been shoved into a home, and they’d happily pay the £1,000 Jim suggested to have her bumped off by a doctor, just to save the care home fees so they can get their hands on more of the money.
I’ve told my family I’m happy to have my body donated to medical science (as did my father) but I might have to change my mind. I trust my family but I don’t want to give the state any more incentives to bump me off.
There was a piece on this in the Telegraph a couple of days ago by none other than Jonathan Sumption. He has, it turns out, ‘made up his mind’ on the question. He’s considered every angle. His conclusion?
“I have come to the conclusion that on balance a change in the law is morally justified in the case of terminally ill patients.”
And that’s it. How long is ‘terminal’? Six weeks to live? Six months? Six years? Every one of us is terminally ill in the long run. And it never occurred to Sumption to ask that question – to define ‘terminal’.
And this man was a Supreme Court judge – the closest we would have to someone with the power of life or death over us, should assisted dying be legalized.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/28/lord-sumption-medically-assisted-suicide-moral-dilemma/
Look at it this way.
Average life expectancy in the UK was 81 years in 2019. Average age at death from/with CoVid in 2020 & 2021 was 82 years.
The UK pissed away £billions, caused wide spread social and economic damage, killed and maimed thousands of healthy young people with lockdowns and faux-vaccines, in order to delay ‘assisted’ dying by virus in a few thousands by 1 year.
The health industry soaks up hundreds of billions of Pounds trying to treat/prevent deaths ‘assisted’ by diseases of old age, to extend life for 5 years or so. In so doing younger people with longer life spans ahead don’t get treatments, society is made poorer as resources are directed away from other activities more beneficial, in order to extend lives of the elderly, often in misery.
Maybe a look at the whole picture, and stop emoting? Instead of concentrating on active assisted dying, consider passive assisted dying – that’s the dying assisted by nature.
We need to stop trying to eliminate death by clinical means. Of course it’s a huge pay day for pharma and the medical profession.
Paul, Somerset – the judge says:
The issue involves a clash between two of the most fundamental values of humanity
And he’s right. It’s a clash between life and death, good and evil. To surrender to death is to let entropy win. We are meant to defy entropy, not hasten it. Our lives are a priceless gift, not a burden.
How exactly is killing the terminally ill (and then the profoundly disabled, and then the less disabled, and then inconvenient grannies who insist on consuming expensive care treatment instead of dying) not purely Evil?
And if the Law is evil, what need have we of “laws”?
BiND: «I’ve told my family I’m happy to have my body donated to medical science (as did my father) but I might have to change my mind. I trust my family but I don’t want to give the state any more incentives to bump me off.»
I sympathise with your dilemma but since medical science now has state approval to carry out experiments on living bodies and that doctors only need to learn how to insert a cannula I think you could stand yourself down without compunction
Hidden underneath that is a underlying change from “burden on family…” to “grasping onto my inheritance, hurry up and ****ing die so I can afford a house!”. How long before it is explicitly stated that people in their 50s should top themselves so their kids can get on the property ladder?
Parris is hired by the Spectator to wind up the readership, who rarely share his views. Now you’re doing the same, Tim.
“Come on Granny, top yersel’, we want the money.”
To complete the sentence. “and we don’t want you spending it on any special care.”
Who? Whom?
If you just kill off the terminally ill how do you improve treatments? So, y’know, the diseases stop being terminal for the next generation of folks.
You don’t learn if you don’t try.
“Maybe a look at the whole picture, and stop emoting? Instead of concentrating on active assisted dying, consider passive assisted dying – that’s the dying assisted by nature.”
Quite. I’m of the opinion that if you are over the average age of death then socialised medicine should not be paying to keep you alive. I reckon if you get to that age then society has done its bit, and after that you’re on your own. And if you ever get to walk round a nursing home (as I did when my late father was in one for a few months while a room was being converted for him at home) you’d see that a large number of them are just living corpses. Kept alive by pills and medical interventions in a state that if you kept a dog like that you’d be arrested. We need to let people die naturally from the things that used to kill them, instead of thinking that a constantly increasing life span is a positive thing. It isn’t if those extra years are spent sitting in a chair pissing yourself while staring at a wall and dribbling.
@jgh,
“… so I can afford a house …”
They still won’t be able to, as the State will absorb it in inheritance tax.
“I’m not dead yet!”
Jim,
In your scenario the average age of death would continuously fall – which some would see as a good idea, especially our beloved “elites,” who would have private treatment.
MG
“But you’ll be stone dead in a moment”
They’ll just want you out of their office and stop bothering them
You’ve got to get into the fucking office in the first place.
Those nice LibDems in Scotland are introducing a bill which will:
“would enable mentally competent adults with an advanced, progressive terminal illness in Scotland to be provided with assistance to end their life at their request.”
They say:
Developed with support from the campaign groups Dignity in Dying, Friends at the End and Humanist Society Scotland, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill will work to deal with this sensitive matter and give dying people a choice. and
Polling has consistently shown overwhelming public support for assisted dying
The bill contains robust safeguards, similar to those which have been safely and successfully introduced in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States
It all sounds sensible and good, but there’s got to be something wrong that I’m missing because nice people make bad laws usually.
“The issue involves a clash between two of the most fundamental values of humanity” …
“The first is our reverence for human life.” … “The second is our respect for the autonomy of our fellows.”
It’s an odd reading of history and archaeology to claim that those two are “fundamental values of humanity”.
Philip – Parris is hired by the Spectator to wind up the readership, who rarely share his views. Now you’re doing the same, Tim.
Rilly? I’d have thought “thou shall not kill” would be a widely accepted moral principle around these parts, but I’m not the Spanish Inquisition or nothing so who knows?
At the risk of being told to fuck off (in fact, I’ll take that as a given), I am sympathetic to the argument.
I would not like to linger, just a burden on family for years.
A peaceful exit option – some agency – would be most welcome.
Having read several opinions by people above on what other people should do, might I request some advice.
I now find myself, to my considerable surprise, approaching the middle of my eighth decade. Despite a lifetime’s endeavour to shorten my lifespan, I seem to have utterly failed. Not only that but in disgusting rude health. I seem to have hit the ageing pause button at about 25. (Maybe cause & effect) However I am, unlike so many, under absolutely no illusion I am immortal. My day will inevitably come. Wouldn’t particularly bother me if it was tomorrow. One thing is sure. There’s one person who’s never affected by a death & that’s the dead’un. So here’s the problem. I watched my father’s reluctant progression towards death’s door & I’ve no intention of going through that. There’s always the affectionate kiss from my trusty shotgun. But someone’s got to clear up the mess. Same applies to other mechanical methods like taking the car into a bridge support or bungee jumping from high buildings without the bungee. And I’m also somewhat deterred by knowing what the body’s capable of surviving. Through personal experience. Then there’s the less dramatic chemical exits. But none of them are particularly reliable & can have some very unpleasant quality of continuing life factors. And there’s always the problem. You can’t share your intentions with anyone else. Because they may be like you lot & think they know better than the person concerned. So I’m going to leave people thinking “If only I’d realised I could have done something”. (cue violins) So come on. What gets me out of here whilst I’m still capable of doing it?
“thou shall not kill” was purportedly instructed by the same chap who said:
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
So smote all the country … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
“A peaceful exit option – some agency – would be most welcome.”
Whisky and revolvers with one round should be available on the NHS.
@dearieme
It’s impressive how verbose the Lord of hosts was in ancient times. Bit like the wife’s mother. Never a day goes by without a call. But He’s been so reticent in more recent centuries. What do you reckon? A touch of laryngitis?
Dearieme, yea, I wholeheartedly support the smitings of specific people God has instructed us to smite.
It’s said that, in the End Times, whole armies of Hell will flee at the sight of one of God’s soldiers.
Which makes me picture a Glaswegian at Megiddo, tauting slavering demons and archviles, saying:
“Mon, then!”
Won’t have to wait 20 years, case in Canada where an autistic person applied for euthanasia (MAID) and went to 2 doctors as per the rules, one said yes the other no, so they were allowed to apply again, same thing 1 doctor said yes and 1 said no, so decision was they could get a 3rd opinion as a tiebreaker and that went to the doctor who said yes first time, who obviously repeated the yes decision. So basically you can keep shopping for doctors until you find 2 that say yes.
Parents are upset as the person is in their 20’s so they aren’t allowed to question or even be given the reason why they are seeking euthanasia due to medical confidentiality.
On the other side a friends husband who was terminal with stomach cancer (seems a lot of that around) had the chance to pass peacefully with his wife present and having said his goodbyes. The problem is the slippery slope, there is a narrow justification, but it will expand to the point where it’s not justified.
I can appreciate the slippery slope argument. Since we’re at or near the bottom of so many slippery slopes on so many other things. We were advised not to smoke, then they started taxing the hell out of smoking, then where you could & could not smoke which is getting smaller & smaller, more hell was taxed (Is it really £15 for a pack of 20 in the UK now? Here you can pay under 4) Now they’re trying to bring in a law that the age limit rises to follow you. The whole lockdown/vaccination farce. Basically the NHS has gone to a “your fortunate if we offer you a service prostrate yourself at our godly wonderfulness” model. But I’m not sure which end of the slippery slope we’re at with assisted dying. What business of the State was it in the first place? Oh, the god botherer interest, wasn’t it?
BiS. You could try a 20 year old girlfriend. It worked for Nelson Rockefeller and probably a few others.
“But I’m not sure which end of the slippery slope we’re at with assisted dying. What business of the State was it in the first place? Oh, the god botherer interest, wasn’t it?”
I’d say the State is in the regulating assisted dying business to stop people killing whoever they liked and then just saying ‘But he asked me to kill him!’. The concept of murder being a bad thing does not require any god botherers to define it, its pretty universal. So working out exactly what is murder and what isn’t, and punishing the guilty is precisely the sort of thing you might hope a State would be involved in. We don’t exactly want a ‘free market’ in killing.
@Ottokring: with today’s lack of initiative, the whisky is ok, but the revolver would have to be replaced with an automatic.
BiS. You could try a 20 year old girlfriend.
Or two. It’s good to have a back-up.
@TD & asiaseen
Nah. Tried that. Even in threes. Just ended up with lots of empty glasses needed washing up & stained sheets. It was fun though. I’m considering giving up smoking & see if that proves fatal.
There’s no slippery slope as long as you apply the correct principle which is that the decision over whether someone kills themselves should be theirs alone. All the talk of terminal illness and getting doctors to certify things is misdirected worry. The only question that should be addressed is one of verifying that the person really does want to die, as it’s a bit difficult to ask them after they have killed themselves. It’s not like suicide is particularly rare already.
” The only question that should be addressed is one of verifying that the person really does want to die,”
Yes because the State has proved to be so good at protecting the innocent so far, as the parent of those students murdered in Nottingham have discovered, as have all the victims of grooming gangs and anyone murdered by an asylum seeker, sorry wannabe brain surgeon. How much effort do you think the ‘Office of Killing People’ is going to put into discovering if Granny Johnson really wants to top herself, or if she’s been got at by her family because they want her house, or the next door neighbour has managed to get her to change her will in his favour and has been surreptitiously waging a war of mental disintegration against her ever since? Or if she’s suffering from some sort of debilitating condition that could actually be cured if the NHS wasn’t so f*cking crap? Or will they just tick all the boxes to cover their own arses, like bureaucrats have from time immemorial and get on with the killing?
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
“Resumé” – Dorothy L Parker
@Jim
All of that is irrelevant. Granny Johnson is already subject to all kinds of pressures to do or not do things. That’s part of life.
I am saying that it should be an individual’s own choice: you are saying that the state should frustrate that choice – that the state should treat its citizens like slaves or cattle and decide for them what they should want.
Whether or not we have assisted dying is not a choice open to us. We already have it. In order to have neither assisted dying nor assisted suicide the medical professions must be staffed only with callous, cruel people who are willing to stand back and do nothing when they see someone is such distress that they genuinely want to die. And reference to better palliative care is just like any other reference to the all-powerful state providing exactly what people need: a hopeless fantasy.
We can have either assisted suicide, where an individual can make their own choice, or assisted dying, where the medics and next-of-kin make it for them.
My answer is harsh but simple enough. I’m OK with the current system. People who really, really, need to die are indeed topped by their doctors. Or nurses. Or themselves turning up the morphine pump.
There’s also clearly – already – some bleeding over into people not quite, or actually, in extremis being bumped. Because that’s just how systems of all kinds work.
In the current system some – not all, by any means, as no system has Bentham’s Panopticon – get tried for murder. A jury gets to decide. And that jury is indeed the determinant of what the plain good folk think is a crime or not. Which is as it should be. There was, I recall, a doctor who OD’d somone shrieking in pain from some variant of arthritis – I think there was something else terminal too – and he got tried. He was most affronted at being tried. He was also found not guilty – the plain good folk considered and went, “Yeah, OK”.
I really, really, believe in jury nullification. It’s that final bulwark between us being ruled as we wish to be and us being ruled as the rulers think we ought to be.
Killing someone is murder. If it’s mercy killing let the jury work it out. Sure, most to near all mercy killings will just happen and never be investigated. But enough will be to create something of a line in that sand.
“I am saying that it should be an individual’s own choice: you are saying that the state should frustrate that choice – that the state should treat its citizens like slaves or cattle and decide for them what they should want.”
So anyone turns up at the docs, says they want to die, and he/she will sign the forms no questions asked? You do realise that people a) can have the balance of their mind disturbed by something and may not actually want what they say they want, and b) be manipulated by others into doing things they would not of their own free will choose? You just said that the only thing that mattered was determining if the person really wanted to die,, but now its all ‘personal autonomy’. Which is it to be then – ‘I want to die. OK go next door and the nurse will inject you’ or ‘I want to die. OK, we’ll now have to investigate your entire life situation in order to check if you really want to die or have been in some way coerced into that decision’. Either you take people at their word, or you don’t and have to verify. It can’t be both.
“We can have either assisted suicide, where an individual can make their own choice, or assisted dying, where the medics and next-of-kin make it for them.”
Ah, so the next of kin get a say in whether Granny dies now then?
‘Its what she wants [I wonder how much the house will make?].’
@Tim Worstall – “If it’s mercy killing let the jury work it out.”
That may be the case (though I rather suspect that, without the ability to get evidence from the deceased, it rarely is the case – hence the desire to have people be quite explicit before suicide), but the cases I am more concered about are those where it is assumed that someone would want to die, but they don’t. It’s easy to assume everyone is like yourself, and if you would (or think you would) find a situation intolerable, then so would others. As long as assisting suicide remains a serious offence, people cannot get too explicit in their enquiries as it risks making it obvious that they are giving such assistance. And those best placed to render assistance – medics – by virtue of being put in that position so often, risk exposure and would almost certainly lose their career regardless of what a jury might say in a criminal trial.
I want it to be open and clearly visible, so it is easy to limit it to suicide and not spread to the unwilling.
@Jim – “So anyone turns up at the docs, says they want to die, and he/she will sign the forms no questions asked?”
No, of course not. A doctor should ask two questions. The second should be “why do you need assistance?” and the first should be “you’ve come to the wrong place – you need to see a solicitor”. Medics should have nothing to do with deciding whether or not someone wants to die. That’s far more like making a will, or a power of attorney. We already have such situations where we trust someone’s word but also require some form of verification. Try transferring out of a defined benefit pension scheme – if it’s worth £30,000 you must get (and, of course, pay for) mandatory financial advice.
– ““We can have either assisted suicide, where an individual can make their own choice, or assisted dying, where the medics and next-of-kin make it for them.”
Ah, so the next of kin get a say in whether Granny dies now then?”
No. That’s backwards. I’m saying that we should have assisted suicide, where the only person whose opinion matters is the person killing themselves; and not a system (assisted dying) where medics judge whether you out to want to kill yourself. nor where next of kin decide for you.
” I’m saying that we should have assisted suicide, where the only person whose opinion matters is the person killing themselves; and not a system (assisted dying) where medics judge whether you out to want to kill yourself. nor where next of kin decide for you.”
So absolutely no checks as to whether a person has been coerced into wanting suicide, or has been gaslit in some way, or is heartbroken from a failed relationship, or is suffering from a treatable illness, or is mentally ill and not of sound mind? Just go to a solicitor, get them to draw up a letter of intent, take that to the doctors and then get your jab? Like having an inoculation, or vitamin shot.
How does that fit with your above statement that it would be necessary to determine if the person really wants to die? If someone has to check then that requires a value judgement, based on information about the person. So that requires research, time, effort etc. Who pays for all that? Also, whoever does that check gets to be the person who decides whether someone (who maybe perfectly healthy, and of any age) can die or not. Who is going to want that job, other than psychopaths?
@Jim – “So absolutely no checks as to whether a person has been coerced into wanting suicide…”
No. There’s nothing wrong with having checks – just like the ones for making drastic changes to your pension. But no part of the checks should be someone else deciding whether you ought to want to kill yourself or not. That is a value judgement that each person must make for themselves. Part of checking can consist of verifying what the person knows and finding out from them who might be trying to influence them.
– “Who pays for all that?”
Who pays for everything else? Who pays if you make a will? If your beneficiaries claim you did so under undue influence rendering it invalid? Who pays for the legally required pension advice?