One granny- E Ranzten- put herself in the limelight as the 'poster granny' for the campaign. 'Look at me' interventions in the media to soften, even nullify, the doubts that are palpable in the HoC and around the country. To have these TV figures given airtime to argue in favour of such a serious ( life defining) issue is a cheap and immoral 'trick'.
She speaks of her own impending demise but she is one individual, not a 'saleswoman' for 'mail order' assisted dying. She has a right to her opinions but let them be uttered once, not made in to news articles a plenty.
Life and death is unique to each one of us ( save wars and natural disasters, which take many souls before they know or are ready). Our entry and exit from the world is often random, and not bound by time. There can be long drawn out births, quick ones, lingering deaths, or sudden deaths. Doctors can never be 100% certain that 'someone' only has 6 months. That is putting an arbitrary limit on a life....." so gran/grandad/ great aunt/uncle, the docs say 6 months at best.....we know you always said you wouldn't want to be a burden...perhaps now's the time to think of the.....to make arrangements....best for you, of course." How many conversations like that might become commonplace knowing there is legal recourse to ending life.? Did Ms E Rantzen consider that?
Life is a gift, as trite as that sounds, and has to be cherished. If the 'end is nigh', the quality of palliative care can make a huge difference. Human beings, even unconscious, are aware of compassionate treatment, the presence and gentle touch of a nurse or relative at their bedside.
The government doesn't appear to want to pour money in to palliative care- it appears not to value the meaning of life and death. Death is not a package of measures to be overseen by the legislature, it is the individual's final 'goodbye' to THEIR life, the unburdening of the physical, never being a burden on the living.
Yes, an excellently argued case. 'For the greater good' implies the 'end justifying the means', the end being the fear of death or the fear of dying, how ironic. The state has closed the circle, there is no escape. Soylent Green anybody?
To take one’s own life is one thing. To be complicit in the taking of another’s life has always been called something else. It has echoes from a past we fought to destroy. There can never be enough safeguards. Life is sacred. This legislation makes growing old or being disabled a very terrifying prospect.
Excellent article and I couldn't agree more. This end of life bill if it goes through will be expanded and it will be misused, no one should be involved in the process of helping to kill another human especially a doctor or nurse it completely inverts their roll in caring for and treating a patient. We stopped state sanctioned killing of another person in this country now the state is introducing a bill that will allow someone to be involved in the deliberate process of ensuring a "terminally" ill patient will die, it is morally and ethically wrong.
I agree. I wrote to my MP expressing my concern that this bill represented a further drift towards collectivism and away from the sovereignty of the individual.
I couldn’t believe it when I heard one of the very last lines in the recent film release “Paddington in Peru” (said by Mr Brown - Insurance Businessman), is something like “We all should be prepared to take risks as long as it’s FOR THE GREATER GOOD”!
One granny- E Ranzten- put herself in the limelight as the 'poster granny' for the campaign. 'Look at me' interventions in the media to soften, even nullify, the doubts that are palpable in the HoC and around the country. To have these TV figures given airtime to argue in favour of such a serious ( life defining) issue is a cheap and immoral 'trick'.
She speaks of her own impending demise but she is one individual, not a 'saleswoman' for 'mail order' assisted dying. She has a right to her opinions but let them be uttered once, not made in to news articles a plenty.
Life and death is unique to each one of us ( save wars and natural disasters, which take many souls before they know or are ready). Our entry and exit from the world is often random, and not bound by time. There can be long drawn out births, quick ones, lingering deaths, or sudden deaths. Doctors can never be 100% certain that 'someone' only has 6 months. That is putting an arbitrary limit on a life....." so gran/grandad/ great aunt/uncle, the docs say 6 months at best.....we know you always said you wouldn't want to be a burden...perhaps now's the time to think of the.....to make arrangements....best for you, of course." How many conversations like that might become commonplace knowing there is legal recourse to ending life.? Did Ms E Rantzen consider that?
Life is a gift, as trite as that sounds, and has to be cherished. If the 'end is nigh', the quality of palliative care can make a huge difference. Human beings, even unconscious, are aware of compassionate treatment, the presence and gentle touch of a nurse or relative at their bedside.
The government doesn't appear to want to pour money in to palliative care- it appears not to value the meaning of life and death. Death is not a package of measures to be overseen by the legislature, it is the individual's final 'goodbye' to THEIR life, the unburdening of the physical, never being a burden on the living.
Well said.
Yes, an excellently argued case. 'For the greater good' implies the 'end justifying the means', the end being the fear of death or the fear of dying, how ironic. The state has closed the circle, there is no escape. Soylent Green anybody?
To take one’s own life is one thing. To be complicit in the taking of another’s life has always been called something else. It has echoes from a past we fought to destroy. There can never be enough safeguards. Life is sacred. This legislation makes growing old or being disabled a very terrifying prospect.
In fact, I think a more apt description is 'state assisted murder'
Absolutely. I do agree.
Excellent article and I couldn't agree more. This end of life bill if it goes through will be expanded and it will be misused, no one should be involved in the process of helping to kill another human especially a doctor or nurse it completely inverts their roll in caring for and treating a patient. We stopped state sanctioned killing of another person in this country now the state is introducing a bill that will allow someone to be involved in the deliberate process of ensuring a "terminally" ill patient will die, it is morally and ethically wrong.
I agree. I wrote to my MP expressing my concern that this bill represented a further drift towards collectivism and away from the sovereignty of the individual.
I feel that most people survive years longer than so called doctors ' estimates providing they stop engaging with said doctors.
I couldn’t believe it when I heard one of the very last lines in the recent film release “Paddington in Peru” (said by Mr Brown - Insurance Businessman), is something like “We all should be prepared to take risks as long as it’s FOR THE GREATER GOOD”!
Talk about propaganda!
Lockdowns and assisted suicide should not be connected. I love HART publications but this is nonsense