Assisted dying row as patients given six months to live often survive for three years
This article highlights the inaccuracy of end of life predictions by doctors and the probability that if the law is passed lives will be terminated prematurely. Patients who are given a prognosis of six months by their doctors are entitled to be fast-tracked onto universal credit. The latest government statistics show that around 20% of those assessed by doctors as having less than six months to live were still alive three years later. The cost of this is probably a factor in the intention to pass this bill into law. Most doctors are already aware that predicted survival time is often wildly inaccurate, but patients and the general public are probably much less aware.
In submitting this record to the Public Bill Committee HART are documenting the Starmer governments, moral bankruptcy and inhumanity; enabling the slaughter of those for whom the quality of life can be and is still good.
Canada under Trudeau demonstrates the depths to which a government are prepared to sink to kill off problems/human beings for the state. As if the ongoing Covid destruction of the qualty of life and life itself were not enough.
Realistically there are cases where there is unbearable suffering with no prospect of recovery where euthanasia might be a mercy this has to be weighed against the Government's capacity to abuse their own laws. This HART statement sums it up for me.
"...Evidence from jurisdictions with similar laws demonstrates how such measures can spiral into broader, unintended consequences, including expanding eligibility to non-terminal conditions, eroding safeguards, and normalizing death as a response to suffering. This Bill reflects a troubling disregard for the complex realities faced by terminally ill individuals and the evolving nature of their needs...."
Bless HART and all associated with this submission.
I hope HART would like to endorse my counter-proposal to state-sponsored murder.
The problem with these bills is they produce a hammer, and when you have a hammer, you look for nails to whack. We should not be seeking out death as a solution: almost everything is "solved" with death. It is a lazy approach.
During the pandemic I wrote a 'right-to-try' proposal that permits a person who has been declared terminally ill to request to try any and all treatment options available, including experimental drugs that have not yet been approved for use. They are effectively treated like a de facto clinical trial; the proposal requires data is gathered in this scenario.
Even if these drugs carry adverse risks, the individual is already facing death, and unlike state-sponsored murder, even if this results in a death, it produces useful data and insights on what does and does not work. It also gives the patient a much greater level of control over their treatments. So if you want Ivermectin to try to experimentally treat your cancer, you get Ivermectin. If you want some dubious drug from Pfizer, you get the dubious drug.
The idea is companies will willingly offer new experimental treatments to patients who are declared as terminally ill. This converts a hammer into a full blown toolkit.
I'd very much like to see HART group (preferably signed by all members) write a response about what the official evidence shows, from particularly the Scottish inquiry, in relation to 'COVID' excess deaths measured during the main lockdown period March-June 2020. I hope this is something that can be done sooner rather than later. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
Dec 2021. My wife was given 6 to 9 months to live, with "terminal" bone cancer, caused by dreadful treatment of her breast cancer, four years earlier. Long story...
By that time, we'd both been full carnivore for a year, and felt great. Hadn't had a scan in 2020, Covid and hospitalsba nightmare, and she felt great.
Every 6 month scan since has shown no more lesions and no change in presentation. She refused Chemo as it was awful 1st time round.
Had Assisted Suicide been available then, she wd have turned it down.
But - not all may be as fierce and determined as she.
Whilst I am here, we found out from a MacMillan nurse that only ONE in TEN benefit from Chemo for breast cancer and that there is a blood test that will tell whether you are or not.
I meant to say it's a very good article Ros but i've just not seen this same level of focus and committment with practically ANYTHING else at the Scottish/UK COVID inquiries from HART members especially when it comes to the more revealling evidence in care homes the last 18 months. I get a fair few 'thanks' but it's more important the information is shared and i can't recall any restacks or comments from you. This is of course applicable to most covid sceptic/freedom group or popular personality happy to wax lyrical over ANY other issue. Hence my frustration.
3) "Suicide" literally means 'self' (sui) 'kill' ('cide'), not 'make everyone else guilty of murder because you feel so bad'. If I oppose killing people overseas, why would I support killing people domestically?
4) Everyone who vocally supports suicide are mysteriously never dead themselves but always advocate for the killing of others by others; and strangely never advocate for any real, beneficial solutions or treatments. It's almost like they're not actually pro-suicide but pro-murder and get off on the thought of others killing themselves.
5) You can't punish a suicided person on the account they're dead, but you can still punish a murderer.
6) I'd rather my money go into treatments and research rather than going into an already overbustling industry of death.
If you've ever lost a loved one to suicide, you would know that the results for the surviving family and friends are horrible beyond compare. Psychiatric or palliative care, not suicide, is the solution. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
You cannot expect a government that supports genocide to support life.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/21/assisted-dying-row-terminally-ill-patients-live-longer/
Assisted dying row as patients given six months to live often survive for three years
This article highlights the inaccuracy of end of life predictions by doctors and the probability that if the law is passed lives will be terminated prematurely. Patients who are given a prognosis of six months by their doctors are entitled to be fast-tracked onto universal credit. The latest government statistics show that around 20% of those assessed by doctors as having less than six months to live were still alive three years later. The cost of this is probably a factor in the intention to pass this bill into law. Most doctors are already aware that predicted survival time is often wildly inaccurate, but patients and the general public are probably much less aware.
In submitting this record to the Public Bill Committee HART are documenting the Starmer governments, moral bankruptcy and inhumanity; enabling the slaughter of those for whom the quality of life can be and is still good.
Canada under Trudeau demonstrates the depths to which a government are prepared to sink to kill off problems/human beings for the state. As if the ongoing Covid destruction of the qualty of life and life itself were not enough.
Realistically there are cases where there is unbearable suffering with no prospect of recovery where euthanasia might be a mercy this has to be weighed against the Government's capacity to abuse their own laws. This HART statement sums it up for me.
"...Evidence from jurisdictions with similar laws demonstrates how such measures can spiral into broader, unintended consequences, including expanding eligibility to non-terminal conditions, eroding safeguards, and normalizing death as a response to suffering. This Bill reflects a troubling disregard for the complex realities faced by terminally ill individuals and the evolving nature of their needs...."
Bless HART and all associated with this submission.
Bravo. Reject the loathsome culture of death.
I hope HART would like to endorse my counter-proposal to state-sponsored murder.
The problem with these bills is they produce a hammer, and when you have a hammer, you look for nails to whack. We should not be seeking out death as a solution: almost everything is "solved" with death. It is a lazy approach.
During the pandemic I wrote a 'right-to-try' proposal that permits a person who has been declared terminally ill to request to try any and all treatment options available, including experimental drugs that have not yet been approved for use. They are effectively treated like a de facto clinical trial; the proposal requires data is gathered in this scenario.
Even if these drugs carry adverse risks, the individual is already facing death, and unlike state-sponsored murder, even if this results in a death, it produces useful data and insights on what does and does not work. It also gives the patient a much greater level of control over their treatments. So if you want Ivermectin to try to experimentally treat your cancer, you get Ivermectin. If you want some dubious drug from Pfizer, you get the dubious drug.
The idea is companies will willingly offer new experimental treatments to patients who are declared as terminally ill. This converts a hammer into a full blown toolkit.
my mate vax damaged going forassitted murder. astra zenica
So commit suicide if that’s what you want but to make another complicit in a death is not euthanasia. We call it something else.
I'd very much like to see HART group (preferably signed by all members) write a response about what the official evidence shows, from particularly the Scottish inquiry, in relation to 'COVID' excess deaths measured during the main lockdown period March-June 2020. I hope this is something that can be done sooner rather than later. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
Dec 2021. My wife was given 6 to 9 months to live, with "terminal" bone cancer, caused by dreadful treatment of her breast cancer, four years earlier. Long story...
By that time, we'd both been full carnivore for a year, and felt great. Hadn't had a scan in 2020, Covid and hospitalsba nightmare, and she felt great.
Every 6 month scan since has shown no more lesions and no change in presentation. She refused Chemo as it was awful 1st time round.
Had Assisted Suicide been available then, she wd have turned it down.
But - not all may be as fierce and determined as she.
Whilst I am here, we found out from a MacMillan nurse that only ONE in TEN benefit from Chemo for breast cancer and that there is a blood test that will tell whether you are or not.
Was she told this? Of course not.
Good idea. And thanks for your continued coverage of the Scottish Inquiry
I meant to say it's a very good article Ros but i've just not seen this same level of focus and committment with practically ANYTHING else at the Scottish/UK COVID inquiries from HART members especially when it comes to the more revealling evidence in care homes the last 18 months. I get a fair few 'thanks' but it's more important the information is shared and i can't recall any restacks or comments from you. This is of course applicable to most covid sceptic/freedom group or popular personality happy to wax lyrical over ANY other issue. Hence my frustration.
Another eg- see 'COVID' drug trial section. https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newscottish-covid-19-inquiryhealth-48e
Assisted suicide = suicide = one of the greatest human tragedies. Anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows this only too well.
Among the inalienable rights of every man is the right to suicide.
There's a difference between killing yourself, and asking an entire body of the taxpayer funded government to assist you in that process.
Why? What is the difference?
1) Taxpayers' money
2) When someone else does it, it is murder
3) "Suicide" literally means 'self' (sui) 'kill' ('cide'), not 'make everyone else guilty of murder because you feel so bad'. If I oppose killing people overseas, why would I support killing people domestically?
4) Everyone who vocally supports suicide are mysteriously never dead themselves but always advocate for the killing of others by others; and strangely never advocate for any real, beneficial solutions or treatments. It's almost like they're not actually pro-suicide but pro-murder and get off on the thought of others killing themselves.
5) You can't punish a suicided person on the account they're dead, but you can still punish a murderer.
6) I'd rather my money go into treatments and research rather than going into an already overbustling industry of death.
If you've ever lost a loved one to suicide, you would know that the results for the surviving family and friends are horrible beyond compare. Psychiatric or palliative care, not suicide, is the solution. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.