I'm also uneasy about the effect the Bill will have on the relationship between doctors and patients. Frankly, I want my doctors to be the sort of people who recoil from ending someone's life. Unless they are, it's a degree or two more difficult to trust my loved ones or myself into their care. If I or my loved ones were disabled or had limited mental capacity, I would be even more wary.
excellent piece by Jan Henderson, read the rest here.
I'm in agreement with Jan, and she states many of the reasons better than I could. The Belgian journey has already taken them to legalising this for children, and the UK experience with abortion - legalised for exceptional circumstances, but now used routinely as a method of birth control - shows that reality can end up a long way from where those drafting the laws intended it.
So I'm with Justin Welby, rather than George Carey on this one. Freedom of choice tends to serve the strong, rather than the weak and vulnerable, because the weak have fewer choices, and less power to use them. The law is there to protect the vulnerable. It's interesting how the terminology has changed to emphasise choice: dying (something done by the patient) rather than euthanasia (something done by the doctor).
Having talked people through a desire for suicide who ended up living happily, I have an intrinsic caution over the nature of a 'choice' to die. It's not made in a set of clean, clear-minded circumstances, and changing the culture around death with complicate things even further.
Update: good response to George Carey here from Ian Paul.
And the BMA is still opposed to assisted dying, despite an editorial in its house journal in favour.
I was struck by a comment I saw on Nick Baines blog 'we already have assisted dying, it's called a hospice'
Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The Pressure to Die
"Many people ask me, several times a week... if I ever contemplate (assisted suicide). It makes one feel like I should be contemplating it for the sake of the health service, for my family watching what I'm going through. I'm afraid that it will extend into the social conscience that people will almost expect assisted dying.... a (new) law will pressurise people."
story here.
If this is happening when assisted suicide is still illegal (though increasingly allowed through the legal system), then it will only get worse if it is legalised.
Even those who support euthanasia agree that it is a 'slippery slope', 12 years after legalising it, Belgium has now extended euthanasia to children. The Belgian experience has seen assisted dying extended to people who aren't terminally ill, and with the change in law has come a change in culture. Once you cross a line, it becomes very difficult to draw new ones that have the same moral force.
story here.
If this is happening when assisted suicide is still illegal (though increasingly allowed through the legal system), then it will only get worse if it is legalised.
Even those who support euthanasia agree that it is a 'slippery slope', 12 years after legalising it, Belgium has now extended euthanasia to children. The Belgian experience has seen assisted dying extended to people who aren't terminally ill, and with the change in law has come a change in culture. Once you cross a line, it becomes very difficult to draw new ones that have the same moral force.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
BBC campaign for assisted suicide continues
Update: looks like the coverage on the radio was even worse.
Click onto the main BBC page at the time of writing and ' 'Strong case' for assisted dying' is the main headline alongside the continuing story of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. Thinking that maybe this was some key report by the BMA, I clicked through to the story. It's no such thing.
The story itself is about a report by a 'group of experts'. It turns out the 'group of experts' are a group of supporters of euthanasia, gathered together by Charlie Falconer (who's twice tried to get assisted dying put into law via the Lords) and funded by Terry Pratchett, a noted public supporter of assisted dying.
This is the equivalent of the church of England appointing a group of bishops to investigate whether praying is a good thing, and reporting back that, well I never, actually it is.
There's a fairly direct statement already up on the Church of England website in response to the report, it begins:
The 'Commission on Assisted Dying' is a self-appointed group that excluded from its membership anyone with a known objection to assisted suicide. In contrast, the majority of commissioners, appointed personally by Lord Falconer, were already in favour of changing the law to legitimise assisted suicide. Lord Falconer has, himself, been a leading proponent for legitimising assisted suicide, for some years.
Rarely is the CofE press machine so quickly out of the blocks. The main issue is whether a system of safeguards can be created which enables assisted suicide for those who want it, whilst protecting those who might be vulnerable. Buried away in the BBC report is a statement from the BMA, which doesn't support assisted suicide. One might have thought their opinions would be nearer the top of the page.
Which brings me back to the BBC. They've been very careful not to step over the line on this one, but here we have a public service broadcaster, financed by the license payer. Whenever there has been an attempt in Parliament to get pro-euthanasia legislation passed, the BBC has put up a cluster of sympathetic programmes. The most recent, and most blatant, was the Terry Pratchett letter, chaired by the Dimbleby dynasty, to an audience of the great and the good. No questions, no debate, no alternative view put forward. And with the arguments being presented very personally, that makes it very hard to dispute them without looking heartless and mean. But there's no question that the BBC has an agenda here, and it's systematic enough to reach the headline writers for their web page.
Other links
Piece from the Independent earlier this week, in favour of the proposals, and focusing on Lord Blair, former police chief and commission member. A Carers Journey picks out some of the key bits.
Care not Killing on the makeup of the commission, and response to the report.
Same Difference blogging on disability.
Glyn Davies, MP for Montgomeryshire
Digital Nun on what this, and the Lawrence trial, say about our attitudes to life and death.
Cranmer, writing yesterday.
Vic the Vicar - very good and thoughtful piece.
Nick Baines
Click onto the main BBC page at the time of writing and ' 'Strong case' for assisted dying' is the main headline alongside the continuing story of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. Thinking that maybe this was some key report by the BMA, I clicked through to the story. It's no such thing.
The story itself is about a report by a 'group of experts'. It turns out the 'group of experts' are a group of supporters of euthanasia, gathered together by Charlie Falconer (who's twice tried to get assisted dying put into law via the Lords) and funded by Terry Pratchett, a noted public supporter of assisted dying.
This is the equivalent of the church of England appointing a group of bishops to investigate whether praying is a good thing, and reporting back that, well I never, actually it is.
There's a fairly direct statement already up on the Church of England website in response to the report, it begins:
The 'Commission on Assisted Dying' is a self-appointed group that excluded from its membership anyone with a known objection to assisted suicide. In contrast, the majority of commissioners, appointed personally by Lord Falconer, were already in favour of changing the law to legitimise assisted suicide. Lord Falconer has, himself, been a leading proponent for legitimising assisted suicide, for some years.
Rarely is the CofE press machine so quickly out of the blocks. The main issue is whether a system of safeguards can be created which enables assisted suicide for those who want it, whilst protecting those who might be vulnerable. Buried away in the BBC report is a statement from the BMA, which doesn't support assisted suicide. One might have thought their opinions would be nearer the top of the page.
Which brings me back to the BBC. They've been very careful not to step over the line on this one, but here we have a public service broadcaster, financed by the license payer. Whenever there has been an attempt in Parliament to get pro-euthanasia legislation passed, the BBC has put up a cluster of sympathetic programmes. The most recent, and most blatant, was the Terry Pratchett letter, chaired by the Dimbleby dynasty, to an audience of the great and the good. No questions, no debate, no alternative view put forward. And with the arguments being presented very personally, that makes it very hard to dispute them without looking heartless and mean. But there's no question that the BBC has an agenda here, and it's systematic enough to reach the headline writers for their web page.
Other links
Piece from the Independent earlier this week, in favour of the proposals, and focusing on Lord Blair, former police chief and commission member. A Carers Journey picks out some of the key bits.
Care not Killing on the makeup of the commission, and response to the report.
Same Difference blogging on disability.
Glyn Davies, MP for Montgomeryshire
Digital Nun on what this, and the Lawrence trial, say about our attitudes to life and death.
Cranmer, writing yesterday.
Vic the Vicar - very good and thoughtful piece.
Nick Baines
Monday, February 01, 2010
BBC Coverage of Euthanasia: Spot the Agenda?
Update: The Pratchett lecture was very good, delivered (completely from memory, from what I could see) by Tony Robinson on Terry Pratchett's behalf. As part of the debate, it was worth seeing, very thought provoking, and very honest. Panorama was pretty good, it brought in a range of opinions, though the core story was of a mum who helped her daughter to end her own life. Within that context, it's hard not to present those choices sympathetically.
In the middle of the Dimbleby lecture (with both brothers on the front row), between mentions of Martin Amis and Michael Parkinson, I was struck by the presence of the Baby Boomer generation at the forefront of the pro-euthanasia campaign. The line 'my life, my death, my choice' had echoes of the Boomer mantra 'we want to be free, to do what we wanna do' (from Easy Rider I think). In the 60s and 70s they tested the sexual boundaries, in the 80's and 90's the boundaries of consumption and greed, and now that the boomers have finished their world with SAGA, the idea that a life lived totally on my own terms might not end on my own terms jars with everything the Boomers have done and campaigned for. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of the Panorama surveys by age cohort.
Today:
Panorama documentary 'I helped my daughter to die' (judging by the title, it will be sympathetic to the assisted dying argument).
Terry Pratchett lecture (same link) arguing for the right to assisted suicide.
December 08-Jan 09
'A Short Stay in Switzerland' dramatisation with Julie Walters of the death of retired doctor Ann Turner, who travelled to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to end her life.
Panorama 'I'll Die When I Choose'.
both sympathetic, and aired in the run-up to a Parliamentary debate on the issue.
News coverage of the Joffe bill in 2006, with commentary by Care Not Killing, a coalition of groups opposed to euthanasia. The summing up by reporter Fergus Walsh is quite obviously one-sided.
I'm struggling to think of a programme devoted to the issue which presented both sides equally, let alone allowed a supporter of palliative care to set the agenda and tone for the piece. If I'm wrong, then please let me know some examples, and I'll happily blog them.
In the meantime, I don't want my license payers money used so that the BBC can be a mouthpiece for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Yes this is a complex issue, there are arguments on both sides, and its emotionally charged, but to me it doesn't look like the BBC are facilitating a debate, more that they are running a campaign. Is that fair?
In the middle of the Dimbleby lecture (with both brothers on the front row), between mentions of Martin Amis and Michael Parkinson, I was struck by the presence of the Baby Boomer generation at the forefront of the pro-euthanasia campaign. The line 'my life, my death, my choice' had echoes of the Boomer mantra 'we want to be free, to do what we wanna do' (from Easy Rider I think). In the 60s and 70s they tested the sexual boundaries, in the 80's and 90's the boundaries of consumption and greed, and now that the boomers have finished their world with SAGA, the idea that a life lived totally on my own terms might not end on my own terms jars with everything the Boomers have done and campaigned for. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of the Panorama surveys by age cohort.
Today:
Panorama documentary 'I helped my daughter to die' (judging by the title, it will be sympathetic to the assisted dying argument).
Terry Pratchett lecture (same link) arguing for the right to assisted suicide.
December 08-Jan 09
'A Short Stay in Switzerland' dramatisation with Julie Walters of the death of retired doctor Ann Turner, who travelled to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to end her life.
Panorama 'I'll Die When I Choose'.
both sympathetic, and aired in the run-up to a Parliamentary debate on the issue.
News coverage of the Joffe bill in 2006, with commentary by Care Not Killing, a coalition of groups opposed to euthanasia. The summing up by reporter Fergus Walsh is quite obviously one-sided.
I'm struggling to think of a programme devoted to the issue which presented both sides equally, let alone allowed a supporter of palliative care to set the agenda and tone for the piece. If I'm wrong, then please let me know some examples, and I'll happily blog them.
In the meantime, I don't want my license payers money used so that the BBC can be a mouthpiece for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Yes this is a complex issue, there are arguments on both sides, and its emotionally charged, but to me it doesn't look like the BBC are facilitating a debate, more that they are running a campaign. Is that fair?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Euthanasia - C of E Statement on new Guidelines
There's been an official response from the CofE to the guidelines on prosecution for those who help with assisted suicide earlier this week. To my mind the guidelines did very little to make things clearer, and left several grey areas. There was almost a tacit acceptance of euthanasia in some of the provision, despite the fact that it remains illegal. Here's the CofE statement:
"The Church of England has consistently argued - and Parliament has consistently voted - against any change in the law governing assisted suicide, even when this is motivated by compassion. Guidance from the DPP about the application of the present law to particular circumstances has the potential to provide greater clarity and is in principle to be welcomed, so long as there can be confidence that it will not in practice lead to an erosion of respect for the present law. There are serious moral, ethical and practical issues to consider - for example in relation to concepts such as 'encouragement' and the nature of 'informed decision making'. The Church of England is therefore reserving its position on the detail of the draft guidance at this stage. Its formal submission will be made public in due course."
"The Church of England has consistently argued - and Parliament has consistently voted - against any change in the law governing assisted suicide, even when this is motivated by compassion. Guidance from the DPP about the application of the present law to particular circumstances has the potential to provide greater clarity and is in principle to be welcomed, so long as there can be confidence that it will not in practice lead to an erosion of respect for the present law. There are serious moral, ethical and practical issues to consider - for example in relation to concepts such as 'encouragement' and the nature of 'informed decision making'. The Church of England is therefore reserving its position on the detail of the draft guidance at this stage. Its formal submission will be made public in due course."
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Saturday Roundup
Adam Rutherford at the Guardian is taking the Alpha course, and blogging every Friday about his experiences. He's just survived the first session: "Mostly when I think about religion it's the foolish edicts of preposterous old men in dresses. But sitting down with people who choose to spend a sunny Tuesday evening discussing the meaning of life with strangers seems to be a much more interesting insight into what makes people of faith tick. We shall see." (Ht Andy Dowland)
Dave Walker reports on the Surefish Church Website awards, top blog was Sophia Network, which resources women in youth work and ministry, with Unfinished Christian and Church Mouse both highly commended. Manchester Diocese also picked up an award, which sounds about right. One of their parishes, complete with cartoon vicar on the homepage, picked up the best church website award.
General Synod is underway in York, but without a live broadcast on Anglican TV, unlike FCA (wonder why?) For news follow Thinking Anglicans, or Alastair Cuttings General Synod Blog, or on Twitter using the #synod tag. Tim Chesterton notes that the Canadian General Synod is doing a Cheshire Cat impression .
A couple of significant votes in the Lords: an amendment tabled by Lord Falconer to permit assisted suicide was voted down, whilst a clause which permitted cricitism of homosexual behaviour was retained in the Coroners and Justice Bill. The clause draws a distinction between criticism of homsexual practice and incitement to hatred.
Eddie Arthur notes a study which finds that 75% of us have a Bible but less than 10% know very much about it. (I imagine the same stats would apply to DIY manuals!)
Steve Tilley takes evening prayer out of the building.
Pisteuomen (sounds better in Greek) takes issue with street preachers.
Finally the SWALEC Stadium in Cardiff is no longer the 'unfriendly gulag' it was in March. Though the cricket was disappointing (for an England fan), the stewards and staff made us feel very welcome, the Park and Ride was very well organised, and the steeply racked seating behind short straight boundaries meant you really felt close to the action.
Thanks to the Barmy Army for keeping us entertained yesterday, and no thanks to the umpires who robbed us of 30m+ of play, firstly by announcing a restart with 30 mins notice (the groundstaff were ready after 15), and then taking the players off for no obvious reason and then not telling anyone what was going on. With tickets at £85 a throw, I expected the officials to treat the crowd with a bit more respect, even if some of them were dressed as Smurfs.
Dave Walker reports on the Surefish Church Website awards, top blog was Sophia Network, which resources women in youth work and ministry, with Unfinished Christian and Church Mouse both highly commended. Manchester Diocese also picked up an award, which sounds about right. One of their parishes, complete with cartoon vicar on the homepage, picked up the best church website award.
General Synod is underway in York, but without a live broadcast on Anglican TV, unlike FCA (wonder why?) For news follow Thinking Anglicans, or Alastair Cuttings General Synod Blog, or on Twitter using the #synod tag. Tim Chesterton notes that the Canadian General Synod is doing a Cheshire Cat impression .
A couple of significant votes in the Lords: an amendment tabled by Lord Falconer to permit assisted suicide was voted down, whilst a clause which permitted cricitism of homosexual behaviour was retained in the Coroners and Justice Bill. The clause draws a distinction between criticism of homsexual practice and incitement to hatred.
Eddie Arthur notes a study which finds that 75% of us have a Bible but less than 10% know very much about it. (I imagine the same stats would apply to DIY manuals!)
Steve Tilley takes evening prayer out of the building.
Pisteuomen (sounds better in Greek) takes issue with street preachers.
Finally the SWALEC Stadium in Cardiff is no longer the 'unfriendly gulag' it was in March. Though the cricket was disappointing (for an England fan), the stewards and staff made us feel very welcome, the Park and Ride was very well organised, and the steeply racked seating behind short straight boundaries meant you really felt close to the action.
Thanks to the Barmy Army for keeping us entertained yesterday, and no thanks to the umpires who robbed us of 30m+ of play, firstly by announcing a restart with 30 mins notice (the groundstaff were ready after 15), and then taking the players off for no obvious reason and then not telling anyone what was going on. With tickets at £85 a throw, I expected the officials to treat the crowd with a bit more respect, even if some of them were dressed as Smurfs.
Monday, June 29, 2009
National Secular Society accepts key argument against Euthanasia
Ht to Nick Baines for spotting this National Secular Society comment on spiritual care in hospital:
We have to be very careful about how we tread on this issue. If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards. The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say ‘yes’ thinking their care will suffer.
So there you have it. The NSS accepts that patients may feel pressurised to do something they don't want to do. Which is one of the key arguments against assisted suicide, being debated in the Lords this week. Strangely, the NSS are campaigning in favour of it. I continue to be amazed that an organisation with such a track record in flawed reasoning and misrepresentation is taken seriously by either the media or the government.
One comment on Nick's blog mentions a patient who apologised to her doctor for being a Christian, in case the doctor was offended. Who exactly is being made to feel uncomfortable for what here?
We have to be very careful about how we tread on this issue. If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards. The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say ‘yes’ thinking their care will suffer.
So there you have it. The NSS accepts that patients may feel pressurised to do something they don't want to do. Which is one of the key arguments against assisted suicide, being debated in the Lords this week. Strangely, the NSS are campaigning in favour of it. I continue to be amazed that an organisation with such a track record in flawed reasoning and misrepresentation is taken seriously by either the media or the government.
One comment on Nick's blog mentions a patient who apologised to her doctor for being a Christian, in case the doctor was offended. Who exactly is being made to feel uncomfortable for what here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)