Lord Joffe Spills the Beans
Lord Joffe has authored an assisted suicide bill in the UK House of Lords that, he promises, will restrict assisted suicide to the terminally ill. Only, that is not his goal. As he told the Sunday Times (London), "I can assure you that I would prefer that the [new] law did apply to patients who were younger and who were not terminally ill but who were suffering unbearably," adding, "I believe that this bill should initially be limited."
Of course he wants it limited since that is the only chance it has of passing. Once that happened, then he and his allies could go for the wider license that is the ultimate goal of the vast majority of the euthanasia movement.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:27 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
It's got a better chance of passing due to the high support in the UK (>80%).
In Australia, however, we can't really be considered a democracy because politicians ignore polls most of the time, especially ones showing 70% or more in favour of euthanasia.
And why shouldn't quadraplegics be allowed a lethal dose of Nembutal? It's quicker than removing a ventilator, and there's much less chance of being hooked up again against their will.
And why shouldn't a mother who lost her children be allowed an easy exit? And how about the elderly person "tired of life?" And while we are at it, why not anybody for any reason, as your Phillip Nitschke argues?
You prove my point. Euthanasia isn't about terminal illness. Polling means nothing on these issues because they are shallow and usually measure "terminally ill for whom nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering," a false premise.
I toured your wonderful country in August 2001 speaking on these issues. Got a lot of media attention and we had a good exchange of views. Melbourn is the best city I have ever been in. Sydney makes San Francisco look like Fresno. Perth was cool. Adelaid nice. Loved the Barrier Reef.
The problem is "most" people in these polls favor killing for "others," you know, the "undesirables," rather than providing decent health care for all regardless of disability.
Ever hear of the Holocaust, Winston Jen? That's why the vast majority of countries don't allow euthanasia. It has nothing to do with "freedom of choice," to use the propaganda words of the bioethicists.
Yes, and so what if everyone over 18 had access to a suicide pill? Alcohol and tobacco are legal, after all, and most smokers abuse tobacco by hurting others, not just themselves.
You probably only think that Australia is a 'wonderful country' because a minority of anti-euthanasia extremists force their views on everyone else. The Liberal party even ignores the wishes of their own constituency regarding euthanasia.
And legal euthanasia would be a lot better than having doctors and hospitals sedate patients into perpetual comas until they die, rather than leaving the decision up to the patients. It would be better
Incorrect, Susan, you add more red herrings. The support people CHOOSING to die, or to receive a lethal injection.
I submitted my post by accident without completing it.
"It would be better than leaving euthanasia unpoliced, unregulated, and involuntary euthanasia unpunished by judges and juries. A true hollow victory indeed".
Regarding suicide pills - so what? No one is forcing people to buy or take them. Having a peaceful 'emergency exit' helps people with Motor Neurone Disease to live longer. I guess you aren't so "pro-life", are you? You're just anti-choice.
No. I just really like Australia. Smile once in a while.
Yeah, I guess dodging the issue and undermining the democratic process does wonders for your stress levels.
Post a Comment
<< Home