The national debate on assisted dying is both moving and frustrating. The dark magnitude of British terminally ill teacher Nathaniel Dye’s words – “my very death depends on it” – weighs on the nation’s conscience.
Dark magnitude? Nation’s conscience? Fair bit of rhetorical puff being applied there.
This interpretation is misguided. For one thing, cold utilitarianism favours assisted death. The taboo that nobody dares to articulate is that assisted dying will leave society financially better off. The NHS spends most of its resources on palliative care for people in the final six months of their life.
What do you mean no one dares articulate? This is the very point that some of us have been shrieking. That the fiscal issues so heavily favour topping Granny that that’s what will happen. Therefore……
Assisted dying will also help people protect their family wealth. Those who are being forced to spend savings and sell assets to pay for end-of-life care will at least have an alternative option. While this might sound grotesquely materialistic, for many the ability to leave a parting gift to their family, and the reassurance that while they may no longer be with them in life, they can at least contribute to their security in death, is more precious than another few months in a hospice bed.
That any number of avaricious little bastards will thereby guilt Granny into taking the pills….
Critics of the Bill have warned that legalising assisted dying could lead to a slippery slope, with not just the terminally ill but the chronically ill becoming eligible and under pressure to end their lives. This argument seems naively narrow.
Naively narrow? But it’s the argument you’ve just made twice!
Jeebus. First they came for logic….
We often complain that government policies are not coordinated.
Worryingly assisted dying, increased revenue from inheritance tax and reducing NHS waiting lists fit together quite smoothly.
‘It is striking that we see no problem with legalising abortion – invoking arguments about female bodily autonomy – but are ambivalent about granting people agency in choosing the manner of their death.’
But if we’re reading this stuff, we’ve dodged the abortion hurdle. But they can still give us the chop so they can afford a few more beers.
PS. Actually I don’t like killing kids. But I’m old fashioned!!
Top yourself and save your inheritance so Rachel Thieves can steal it all!
“Those who are being forced to spend savings and sell assets to pay for end-of-life care will at least have an alternative option. While this might sound grotesquely materialistic…”
No, no, whatever gave you that idea?
’It is striking that we see no problem with legalising abortion…’
That’s the Royal We in use there?
Nathaniel Dye (nominative determinism) said Two Tier’s Labour is:
the party of hope for a brighter future I won’t live to see
So I think we can discount this fucko’s other stupid opinions. I hope he lives forever, the twat.
Dark magnitude? What a swiz: no Diane Abbott anywhere in that article!
Whereas currently they just dose her tea every morning with some brake fluid, so that she pegs it and nobody does an autopsy because she was chronically ill anyway (with brake fluid poisoning).
How often does that sort of thing actually get caught when the old biddy is in her 80’s and won’t die so that the ungrateful bastards can have their “inheritance” without it being gobbled up in care home fees?
Slippery slopes and abortion: I have a memory of reading a book review that pointed out that at the time the new abortion law was introduced in the sixties its main proponents (David Steele, Woy Jenkins and others) wanted abortion-on-demand and were confident that their new law would bring that about. Their talk of limited availability, safeguards. and so on, was all consciously misleading.
I’m not an anti-abortionist myself – I think there are pros and cons – but I am a pro-truthist.
Similarly I think there are pros and cons with voluntary euthanasia, and legitimate worries about how often it won’t be voluntary. I have long assumed, though, that it would arrive in law as a matter of economic policy – when ever anyone points to the burden of caring for the old she may be wondering, perhaps silently, how to cull them.
The bill also proposes / mandates which drugs to be used to kill granny. Not cyanide (see Agatha Christie or Marshall Goering) but some cocktail that is voluminous (low dose doesn’t kill) and has to be mixed to disguise the disgusting taste and acts slowly because taken orally and sometimes doesn’t actually work.
It’s amazing that we’ve become extremely efficient at mass murder but utterly hopeless at individual execution. But that’s the state for you.
If you look around the Animal Kingdom you find that a peaceful, painless death is a rarity. Animals get injured, diseased, or simply weak, and then get predated and eaten. I think a great deal of human behaviour can be explained by our awareness and terror of this.
“Productivity” for other species means the ability of an individual to feed itself. Once they can no longer do that, they die. It is rare to find elderly individuals being fed by other members of the species. Humans are unique in engaging in the large-scale support of the unproductive.
We all want a “good death” but how many of us are actually prepared for it? How are we to know when it’s really time? How is it to be done? Does a big, fat squirt of morphine or fentanyl actually do the job? Do you drift off painlessly in dreams, Huxley-like? Was Shipman actually doing a load of favours?
My daughter will be a doctor, and hope in a position to do what’s best for me when the time comes. What else can I hope for, if I don’t go in an instant from a massive stroke, coronary, massive crash, or nuclear armageddon?
OK, gotta wipe off my keyboard over this: “Critics of the Bill have warned that legalising assisted dying could lead to a slippery slope, with not just the terminally ill but the chronically ill becoming eligible and under pressure to end their lives. This argument seems naively narrow.”
Pretty sure we know that this, and worse, is happening in Canada (retired military member asked for $ to put in a wheelchair ramp, was asked “how about assistance in dying instead” – one example). And at least one Scandinavian country.
Not just terminally ill and chronically ill, but inconvenient or expensive will be viewed as expendable, then undesirable.
The argument that this is worthwhile could be made even after admitting that this is a realistic concern, tradeoffs are a part of life, after all. But don’t buy anything from people who are this uninformed or dishonest.
If you die without a will or next of kin, then your estate goes to the government. I wonder if the government has a list of such people and are hoping they will be able to persuade them to go early.
Norman – personally, I hope I’m killed and eaten by pumas.
@Norman: “What else can I hope for?” According to my cardiologist of a decade ago I should hope for a nice, quick, painless cardiac arrest. As he said, waggishly “You should know you, you’ve already died twice of it.”
Quite: the first time, I fell on my bike and the mechanical shock brought me back to life. It made me wonder about the Resurrection, but the biblical account doesn’t sound much like a cardiac arrest cured by falling onto a bike. But it did add to my pleasure in expostulating “Christ on a bicycle!”
” … another few months in a hospice bed.”
My local hospice treats 600 patients in a year, but only delivers 1,900 bed nights, implying MUCH shorter stays.
Dm – at least Our Lord had a bike.
Jehoshaphat had to use a pogo stick.
As regards the drug of choice for offing Granny, have we used the entire French stock of Midazolam as well as the UKs on our elderly already?
but some cocktail that is voluminous (low dose doesn’t kill) and has to be mixed to disguise the disgusting taste and acts slowly because taken orally and sometimes doesn’t actually work.
Yeah, but that’s how most people try to top themselves. And mostly unsuccessfully. Your system doesn’t like ingesting stuff that isn’t good for it & is inclined to vomit it up. But what remains can do serious damage. You can fatally overdose on paracetamol. But not successfully overdosing could leave you with a severely damaged liver, brain damage etc.
This is really what assisted dying is all about. It’s a strange way to phrase it, but it would be safer. Anyone can attempt to commit suicide. But doing it successfully isn’t easy.
Its almost like these people have never heard of suicide.
Like, they can’t comprehend the concept that a person could take their own life – no, it must be taken by the state or else they are helpless, *forced* to spend down their saving’s on end-of-life care instead of being selfless and dying while they can still leave a chunk of change for the state to steal in inheritance taxes.
>Critics of the Bill have warned that legalising assisted dying could lead to a slippery slope, with not just the terminally ill but the chronically ill becoming eligible and under pressure to end their lives. This argument seems naively narrow.
Except, of course, for every country that has gone down this path. See: Canada.
>John Galt
Whereas currently they just dose her tea every morning with some brake fluid, so that she pegs it and nobody does an autopsy because she was chronically ill anyway (with brake fluid poisoning).
At least that requires them to build up the gumption to do the deed themselves instead of just requiring a sterile signature on a piece of paper – or even the doctor doing it for them allowing them to pretend their hands are still clean.