info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Patient care and the Christian faith?
37 views
Skip to first unread message
hermeneutika
Oct 12, 2021, 3:32:30 PM10/12/21
to
Would anyone agree that for the Christian and for anyone else for that matter, that in any medical role patient care must be prioritized above all else? Or is this a naive belief, that patient care is just a slogan to make money and nobody cares if the patients live or die?
Has the Hippocratic Oath gone out the window? We dont care if you do harm as long as the profits are high? But surely even for pure self interest, if one kills all ones patients, one will be out of business and out of profits.
I am currently working in a environment where some of the staff put personal feuds with management above patient care. I did two and half years in a big pharma company, and there at least it was hammered home that patient care was top priority, that out trumped everything and everyone else.
So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
Has the Hippocratic Oath gone out the window? We dont care if you do harm as long as the profits are high? But surely even for pure self interest, if one kills all ones patients, one will be out of business and out of profits.
I am currently working in a environment where some of the staff put personal feuds with management above patient care. I did two and half years in a big pharma company, and there at least it was hammered home that patient care was top priority, that out trumped everything and everyone else.
So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
Kendall K. Down
Oct 12, 2021, 4:10:07 PM10/12/21
to
On 12/10/2021 07:56, hermeneutika wrote:
> So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
You do what is right and don't worry about other people.
> So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Jason
Oct 14, 2021, 3:14:19 PM10/14/21
to
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:00:58 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 07:56, hermeneutika wrote:
>
>> So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one
>> dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
>
> You do what is right and don't worry about other people.
I agree (at least in principle) 100% with Kendall, though it can be
> On 12/10/2021 07:56, hermeneutika wrote:
>
>> So whats a poor boy to do? When threats of violence are issued if one
>> dares to suggest that patient care is our number one priority?
>
> You do what is right and don't worry about other people.
easier said than done, especially if you are relatively new and the
"workplace culture" is already very set in its ways.
All you can do I think is stand firm for what's right, which in such
settings ought to be as you say: patient care. I'd suggest that
something is seriously wrong with parts of the business if people are
openly insisting there are higher priorities (though perhaps behind-the-
scenes such views are more common than you would like to think).....
Kendall K. Down
Oct 14, 2021, 4:10:08 PM10/14/21
to
On 14/10/2021 17:24, Jason wrote:
> All you can do I think is stand firm for what's right, which in such
> settings ought to be as you say: patient care. I'd suggest that
> something is seriously wrong with parts of the business if people are
> openly insisting there are higher priorities (though perhaps behind-the-
> scenes such views are more common than you would like to think).....
There is also the point that "patient care" can be a complex thing. I
> All you can do I think is stand firm for what's right, which in such
> settings ought to be as you say: patient care. I'd suggest that
> something is seriously wrong with parts of the business if people are
> openly insisting there are higher priorities (though perhaps behind-the-
> scenes such views are more common than you would like to think).....
have just read a book by a brain surgeon who makes the point that if he
allows a trainee to perform a certain operation, the patient may suffer.
On the other hand, if he never allows the trainee to operate, that
patient may benefit but future patients (after the writer has retired or
died) will suffer because the trainee has never learned.
Plus, of course, there is the question of limited resources. Is it
better to half-treat 50 patients or fully treat 25 and let the other 25
suffer?
hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is ignorant
which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of patients B, C,
D, and so on down to Z.
hermeneutika
Oct 15, 2021, 7:10:08 AM10/15/21
to
This is a major difference of opinion. Also if you see todays newspapers...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/public-told-retake-pcr-tests-false-negatives-government-run/
This may be the result of staff indifference to the entire process? Very tricky issues.I am praying about seeing the young person in question next Monday when i am back on shift. I will explain to him why i was angry with him on the last day of the last shift, when he sent out the wrong samples to the wrong address via the wrong courier. The samples may not have been important....or perhaps they were? When i quoted chapter and verse of the operating procedure he got quite angry and told me to f off.
So i now have to see him on Monday. Yesterday i went to the Christian Resources Exhibition(CRE) and i have got some brand new Bibles. I beleive that God may be saying to have some form of reconciliation with the man, while not accepting his bad behaviour. I aim to give him a Bible. He may throw it away, tell me f off, whatever....i will have tried to act with good will and reconciliation.
What does the panel think?
Mike Davis
Oct 15, 2021, 12:20:06 PM10/15/21
to
your relationship with the young man. He is already aware that you have
'judged' him and disagree.
By all means apologise for your anger, and explain that (for instance)
all jobs are there to help other people, and if one is not doing that,
it's a waste of 'your' life. Then ask about jobs he's had where he's
been happiest (or jobs that he'd like to do), *listen* and be constructive.
THEN he may start to trust you, and listen to your pov. In my
experience, giving Bibles means they are really read. Give a Verse or
two ('God loves you', etc.) and let them ask you some questions. If you
don't think you can answer then at the appropriate level, then see if
you can find someone who can.
But do keep your temper!! ;-)
I'll pray for your success.
Blessings
Mike
--
Mike Davis
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jason
Oct 15, 2021, 2:20:38 PM10/15/21
to
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 21:02:01 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 17:24, Jason wrote:
>
>> All you can do I think is stand firm for what's right, which in such
>> settings ought to be as you say: patient care. I'd suggest that
>> something is seriously wrong with parts of the business if people are
>> openly insisting there are higher priorities (though perhaps
>> behind-the-
>> scenes such views are more common than you would like to think).....
>
> There is also the point that "patient care" can be a complex thing. I
> have just read a book by a brain surgeon who makes the point that if he
> allows a trainee to perform a certain operation, the patient may suffer.
> On the other hand, if he never allows the trainee to operate, that
> patient may benefit but future patients (after the writer has retired or
> died) will suffer because the trainee has never learned.
>
> Plus, of course, there is the question of limited resources. Is it
> better to half-treat 50 patients or fully treat 25 and let the other 25
> suffer?
I agree with the general points in the above, it's a very difficult
> On 14/10/2021 17:24, Jason wrote:
>
>> All you can do I think is stand firm for what's right, which in such
>> settings ought to be as you say: patient care. I'd suggest that
>> something is seriously wrong with parts of the business if people are
>> openly insisting there are higher priorities (though perhaps
>> behind-the-
>> scenes such views are more common than you would like to think).....
>
> There is also the point that "patient care" can be a complex thing. I
> have just read a book by a brain surgeon who makes the point that if he
> allows a trainee to perform a certain operation, the patient may suffer.
> On the other hand, if he never allows the trainee to operate, that
> patient may benefit but future patients (after the writer has retired or
> died) will suffer because the trainee has never learned.
>
> Plus, of course, there is the question of limited resources. Is it
> better to half-treat 50 patients or fully treat 25 and let the other 25
> suffer?
question in any health care setting where resources are finite, there are
some very difficult questions around cost/benefit of expensive drugs and
so on that are morally very difficult (if not impossible) to resolve to
everyone's satisfaction.
> hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
> bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is ignorant
> which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of patients B, C,
> D, and so on down to Z.
resources available as mentioned above. I don't think you can make such
generalisations, but I don't agree with using simple numbers as above
("let's deny this one person expensive heart drugs so we can do 10 knee
transplants").
Jason
Oct 15, 2021, 2:20:56 PM10/15/21
to
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 04:01:33 -0700, hermeneutika wrote:
> Well to continue this conversation.....what happens if one has a
> difference of opinion in the workplace? eg most recently one guy thinks
> it is ok to break the law,take drugs and put money into criminal drug
> networks, and also he says he beleives in vigilante justice. However i
> beleive in the rule of law, that even the medical risks of drug taking
> can be quite severe, and i also beleive in due process...
> This is a major difference of opinion.
Differences of opinion will always exist between people, in the workplace
> Well to continue this conversation.....what happens if one has a
> difference of opinion in the workplace? eg most recently one guy thinks
> it is ok to break the law,take drugs and put money into criminal drug
> networks, and also he says he beleives in vigilante justice. However i
> beleive in the rule of law, that even the medical risks of drug taking
> can be quite severe, and i also beleive in due process...
> This is a major difference of opinion.
as much as everywhere else. To me, it's about how you handle it. All you
can do is to politely but firmly state your own case, and try not to get
led astray into bad practices [again, sometimes easier said than done
depending on the workplace "culture"]. Sometimes the best you can do is
to agree to disagree, and try not to let disagreements poison the
atmosphere too much.
> Also if you see todays
> newspapers...
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/15/public-told-retake-pcr-
tests-false-negatives-government-run/
>
> This may be the result of staff indifference to the entire process? Very
> tricky issues.
the "technical issues which led to inaccurate results being sent out"
> I am praying about seeing the young person in question
> next Monday when i am back on shift. I will explain to him why i was
> angry with him on the last day of the last shift, when he sent out the
> wrong samples to the wrong address via the wrong courier. The samples
> may not have been important....or perhaps they were? When i quoted
> chapter and verse of the operating procedure he got quite angry and told
> me to f off.
but I'd say it's important to avoid getting "shouty", even if you can't
avoid getting angry. All you can do is point out that a mistake was made
(which it sounds like was spotted, otherwise you wouldn't know about it)
and that the whole reason that procedures are in place is to try and
prevent such mistakes as we are all fallible and need all the help we can
get. If someone simply will not follow workplace procedures (e.g.
working in a restaurant but not following any food hygiene regulations)
then they should be pulled up about it by their supervisor and given
training and advice to improve. If they are still not interested, then I
would argue they are not in the right job.
> So i now have to see him on Monday. Yesterday i went to the Christian
> Resources Exhibition(CRE) and i have got some brand new Bibles. I
> beleive that God may be saying to have some form of reconciliation with
> the man, while not accepting his bad behaviour. I aim to give him a
> Bible. He may throw it away, tell me f off, whatever....i will have
> tried to act with good will and reconciliation.
>
> What does the panel think?
that God believes likewise. Yes, go for it, explain you've been to that
exhibition and offer him a Bible, seems a great opportunity. If he
doesn't want it, fine; you've tried. Good luck with it! You have my
prayers.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 15, 2021, 3:20:06 PM10/15/21
to
On 15/10/2021 12:01, hermeneutika wrote:
> Well to continue this conversation.....what happens if one has a difference of opinion in the workplace? eg most recently one guy thinks it is ok to break the law,take drugs and put money into criminal drug networks, and also he says he beleives in vigilante justice. However i beleive in the rule of law, that even the medical risks of drug taking can be quite severe, and i also beleive in due process...
If someone is breaking the law, then of course you have a duty to inform
the appropriate authorities. However if it is merely a difference of
opinion, you stick to what you believe to be right and don't worry about
other people.
> So i now have to see him on Monday. Yesterday i went to the Christian Resources Exhibition(CRE) and i have got some brand new Bibles. I beleive that God may be saying to have some form of reconciliation with the man, while not accepting his bad behaviour. I aim to give him a Bible. He may throw it away, tell me f off, whatever....i will have tried to act with good will and reconciliation.
- perhaps you ought to mention the matter to your manager - BUT THEN
LEAVE IT ALONE!
I am concerned that you are following a familiar pattern of seeing fault
in others, agitating over it, and eventually losing your job. Doing all
this doesn't make you happy, doesn't give you stability in your life,
doesn't give you a good employment record. The fact that it seems to
happen in every single job you find does make me think that the problem
lies in you, not in your colleagues.
Once you have been promoted to manager *then* you can start ordering the
workplace and the workers in accord with your views. Until then, do your
job and let other people do their's and leave it up to the appointed
managers to decide whether they or you are acting properly.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 15, 2021, 3:30:07 PM10/15/21
to
On 15/10/2021 17:37, Jason wrote:
> If someone simply will not follow workplace procedures (e.g.
> working in a restaurant but not following any food hygiene regulations)
> then they should be pulled up about it by their supervisor
That is the key point: "by their supervisor", *not* by hermeneutika.
> If someone simply will not follow workplace procedures (e.g.
> working in a restaurant but not following any food hygiene regulations)
> then they should be pulled up about it by their supervisor
Kendall K. Down
Oct 15, 2021, 3:30:08 PM10/15/21
to
On 15/10/2021 17:16, Jason wrote:
>> hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
>> bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is ignorant
>> which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of patients B, C,
>> D, and so on down to Z.
> I find it hard to agree with this, though I acknowledge the finite
> resources available as mentioned above. I don't think you can make such
> generalisations, but I don't agree with using simple numbers as above
> ("let's deny this one person expensive heart drugs so we can do 10 knee
> transplants").
Re-read what I said before the paragraph quoted above. I was not talking
>> hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
>> bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is ignorant
>> which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of patients B, C,
>> D, and so on down to Z.
> I find it hard to agree with this, though I acknowledge the finite
> resources available as mentioned above. I don't think you can make such
> generalisations, but I don't agree with using simple numbers as above
> ("let's deny this one person expensive heart drugs so we can do 10 knee
> transplants").
about scarce resources but about training and letting trainees make
mistakes (though hopefully the trainer will be on hand to correct the
mistakes).
However even on the level of resources, the simple proposal you suggest
*may* be legitimate. Obviously the person who needs the expensive drugs
will see his own needs as predominant, but sometimes a third party who
is not emotionally involved may have clearer vision.
2 extra years of ill-health for the heart patient.
100 pain-free years for the 10 knee transplants.
hermeneutika
Oct 17, 2021, 4:40:08 AM10/17/21
to
hermeneutika
Oct 17, 2021, 5:10:07 AM10/17/21
to
O LORD HELP ME TO KEEP MY BIG MOUTH SHUT UNTIL I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
> Kendall K. Down
Mike Davis
Oct 17, 2021, 6:00:07 AM10/17/21
to
On 17/10/2021 09:37, hermeneutika wrote:
> On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 17:20:06 UTC+1, Mike Davis wrote:
>>> What does the panel think?
>> I don't think a Bible (at this point) is appropriate. What matters is
>> your relationship with the young man. He is already aware that you have
>> 'judged' him and disagree.
>>
>> By all means apologise for your anger, and explain that (for instance)
>> all jobs are there to help other people, and if one is not doing that,
>> it's a waste of 'your' life. Then ask about jobs he's had where he's
>> been happiest (or jobs that he'd like to do), *listen* and be constructive.
>>
>> THEN he may start to trust you, and listen to your pov. In my
>> experience, giving Bibles means they are really read.
Whoops, a BIG typo there!!
> On Friday, 15 October 2021 at 17:20:06 UTC+1, Mike Davis wrote:
>>> What does the panel think?
>> I don't think a Bible (at this point) is appropriate. What matters is
>> your relationship with the young man. He is already aware that you have
>> 'judged' him and disagree.
>>
>> By all means apologise for your anger, and explain that (for instance)
>> all jobs are there to help other people, and if one is not doing that,
>> it's a waste of 'your' life. Then ask about jobs he's had where he's
>> been happiest (or jobs that he'd like to do), *listen* and be constructive.
>>
>> THEN he may start to trust you, and listen to your pov. In my
>> experience, giving Bibles means they are really read.
That should read:
"In my experience, giving Bibles means they are *RARELY* read."
(sorry!)
Better to.. Give a Verse or
>> two ('God loves you', etc.) and let them ask you some questions. If you
>> don't think you can answer then at the appropriate level, then see if
>> you can find someone who can.
>>
>> But do keep your temper!! ;-)
>>
>> I'll pray for your success.
>>
> thanks very much
>> don't think you can answer then at the appropriate level, then see if
>> you can find someone who can.
>>
>> But do keep your temper!! ;-)
>>
>> I'll pray for your success.
>>
You are welcome!
Mike Davis
Oct 17, 2021, 6:00:10 AM10/17/21
to
"...and help me to love all those you send to me...!"
Jason
Oct 17, 2021, 4:07:24 PM10/17/21
to
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:26:47 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 17:16, Jason wrote:
>
>>> hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
>>> bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is
>>> ignorant which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of
>>> patients B, C,
>>> D, and so on down to Z.
>
>> I find it hard to agree with this, though I acknowledge the finite
>> resources available as mentioned above. I don't think you can make
>> such generalisations, but I don't agree with using simple numbers as
>> above ("let's deny this one person expensive heart drugs so we can do
>> 10 knee transplants").
>
> Re-read what I said before the paragraph quoted above. I was not talking
> about scarce resources but about training and letting trainees make
> mistakes (though hopefully the trainer will be on hand to correct the
> mistakes).
Yes, I realise your first paragraph was about training - I completely
> On 15/10/2021 17:16, Jason wrote:
>
>>> hermeneutika sees things on the level of the individual patient in the
>>> bed, but perhaps there are other considerations of which he is
>>> ignorant which mean that patient A suffers for the greater good of
>>> patients B, C,
>>> D, and so on down to Z.
>
>> I find it hard to agree with this, though I acknowledge the finite
>> resources available as mentioned above. I don't think you can make
>> such generalisations, but I don't agree with using simple numbers as
>> above ("let's deny this one person expensive heart drugs so we can do
>> 10 knee transplants").
>
> Re-read what I said before the paragraph quoted above. I was not talking
> about scarce resources but about training and letting trainees make
> mistakes (though hopefully the trainer will be on hand to correct the
> mistakes).
agree with this - but I thought you had moved the argument on with
paragraph 2, "Plus, of course, there is the question of limited
resources."
> However even on the level of resources, the simple proposal you suggest
> *may* be legitimate. Obviously the person who needs the expensive drugs
> will see his own needs as predominant, but sometimes a third party who
> is not emotionally involved may have clearer vision.
>
> 2 extra years of ill-health for the heart patient.
> 100 pain-free years for the 10 knee transplants.
to be efficacious by the appropriate bodies, they use it. Of course if
the benefit is more marginal, it's a more difficult question. For me, it
will be a sad day indeed if our health service ends up as "this person is
too expensive to treat" or "let's bump off all the old folk, they've only
got a few years left anyway, just think how much better we could use our
resources on the young with all their life ahead of them".
Kendall K. Down
Oct 17, 2021, 4:40:07 PM10/17/21
to
On 17/10/2021 10:01, hermeneutika wrote:
> of course you are correct....i have acted outside of my role. i have apologised...I am not looking forward to going onto shift tommorow. I think i may keep myself to myself. Do as i am told, and that is that. I am at the bottam of the food chain. Maybe it might be best for all if the interview i have on Friday is successful. Any and all clashes would then be resolved. I would be in a new job and the bottam of the pile. It takes me about a year before the relationships become comfortable and i feel comfortable expressing a opinion. In a new job all one ican can do is keep ones head down and ones mouth shut!! Maybe better for all? I would be on probation anyway. Subject to instant dismissal if they so choose. So in a new job one is on tenderhooks while i learn the job and find any relationships.
I certainly think that it is a good idea not to try chucking one's
weight around when one is relatively new in a job. Work hard, avoid
conflict, until and unless you are promoted to a supervisory role you
are responsible for yourself and no one else.
Have you ever considered setting up your own business? It need not be
the new Microsoft, but you could find work as a self-employed delivery
driver. That way you wouldn't be tempted to try telling others how to do
their jobs.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 17, 2021, 4:40:08 PM10/17/21
to
On 17/10/2021 15:56, Jason wrote:
> I am glad that in many cases, so long as expensive-treatment-A is proven
> to be efficacious by the appropriate bodies, they use it. Of course if
> the benefit is more marginal, it's a more difficult question.
Yes. On the whole, we are well-served by the NHS.
> I am glad that in many cases, so long as expensive-treatment-A is proven
> to be efficacious by the appropriate bodies, they use it. Of course if
> the benefit is more marginal, it's a more difficult question.
> For me, it
> will be a sad day indeed if our health service ends up as "this person is
> too expensive to treat" or "let's bump off all the old folk, they've only
> got a few years left anyway, just think how much better we could use our
> resources on the young with all their life ahead of them".
evaluating life-time benefits of treatments. Just type "NICE quality of
life assessment" into your preferred search engine and see what you get!
In the absence of infinite resources, such assessments are inevitable
and frankly, are better than the alternative.
The surgeon I quoted in a previous post goes out to Nepal every year or
so to help out in a hospital there and has horrendous stories of
families who beggar themselves to keep alive artificially a relative who
has suffered catastrophic brain damage and will never recover, simply
because no one has the courage to tell them to turn the machine off.
steve hague
Oct 18, 2021, 1:10:08 AM10/18/21
to
still has the vigour and enthusiasm to do demanding jobs. I've been
retired for a couple of years now, and glad of it.
Steve Hague
Kendall K. Down
Oct 18, 2021, 12:20:07 PM10/18/21
to
On 18/10/2021 06:02, steve hague wrote:
> He's about a year older than me, and I'm 68. It's admirable that he
> still has the vigour and enthusiasm to do demanding jobs. I've been
> retired for a couple of years now, and glad of it.
It is always possible that the element of choice does not come into it
> He's about a year older than me, and I'm 68. It's admirable that he
> still has the vigour and enthusiasm to do demanding jobs. I've been
> retired for a couple of years now, and glad of it.
and he has to work - if so, he has my sympathy. Nevertheless, if working
with others is stressful for him, finding a different line of work where
he can be - more or less - his own boss seems like a good idea.
Jason
Oct 18, 2021, 2:44:28 PM10/18/21
to
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 21:38:17 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 17/10/2021 15:56, Jason wrote:
>
>> I am glad that in many cases, so long as expensive-treatment-A is
>> proven to be efficacious by the appropriate bodies, they use it. Of
>> course if the benefit is more marginal, it's a more difficult question.
>
> Yes. On the whole, we are well-served by the NHS.
For all it's problems, I completely agree. For me, the NHS is our "pièce
> On 17/10/2021 15:56, Jason wrote:
>
>> I am glad that in many cases, so long as expensive-treatment-A is
>> proven to be efficacious by the appropriate bodies, they use it. Of
>> course if the benefit is more marginal, it's a more difficult question.
>
> Yes. On the whole, we are well-served by the NHS.
de résistance" and I'd like it would be the last man standing even if
government money ran out for everything else.....
>> For me, it will be a sad day indeed if our health service ends up as
>> "this person is too expensive to treat" or "let's bump off all the old
>> folk, they've only got a few years left anyway, just think how much
>> better we could use our resources on the young with all their life
>> ahead of them".
>
> I don't know about "bump off", but certainly there are attempts at
> evaluating life-time benefits of treatments. Just type "NICE quality of
> life assessment" into your preferred search engine and see what you get!
>
> In the absence of infinite resources, such assessments are inevitable
> and frankly, are better than the alternative.
>
> The surgeon I quoted in a previous post goes out to Nepal every year or
> so to help out in a hospital there and has horrendous stories of
> families who beggar themselves to keep alive artificially a relative who
> has suffered catastrophic brain damage and will never recover, simply
> because no one has the courage to tell them to turn the machine off.
come up with a good answer. You see many similar arguments used in
favour of euthanasia, which from a "human suffering" angle look similar
to your last paragraph. Aside from the obvious "thou shall not kill"
arguments, one of the key problems even for proponents is the slippery
slope: it might start as an idea to alleviate intolerable suffering when
there is no hope of improvement in health but ends up as "I don't want to
be a burden on my family".
Kendall K. Down
Oct 18, 2021, 2:50:06 PM10/18/21
to
On 18/10/2021 17:31, Jason wrote:
> These are all very good questions, to which I suspect it is impossible to
> come up with a good answer.
I agree.
> These are all very good questions, to which I suspect it is impossible to
> come up with a good answer.
> You see many similar arguments used in
> favour of euthanasia, which from a "human suffering" angle look similar
> to your last paragraph.
would prolong life and performing and action that would shorten life.
The distinction is probably a nice one, but I think it exists and is valid.
Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
> Aside from the obvious "thou shall not kill"
> arguments, one of the key problems even for proponents is the slippery
> slope: it might start as an idea to alleviate intolerable suffering when
> there is no hope of improvement in health but ends up as "I don't want to
> be a burden on my family".
are gleefully slipping down it.
Madhu
Oct 18, 2021, 10:20:07 PM10/18/21
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <ski1jp$bm7$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 17 Oct 2021 21:38:17 +0100:
> The surgeon I quoted in a previous post goes out to Nepal every year
> or so to help out in a hospital there and has horrendous stories of
> families who beggar themselves to keep alive artificially a relative
> who has suffered catastrophic brain damage and will never recover,
> simply because no one has the courage to tell them to turn the machine
> off.
a long time to jack up the bills and then they refused to release the
body until the payment was settled in cash. (I wasn't in the country)
But then this story is in contrast to the anti-eastern-mysticism tirade
posted by Gavin Finley on endtimespilgrim.com/bio.htm
BEGIN QUOTE
Here is an example. We came to one village and heard some disturbing
news. A young woman had just died. Apparently she had endured a
complicated childbirth a couple of days before. The newborn baby was
ok. But the childbirth had been complicated by a 'retained placenta'.
The relatives could have done something about this. After such an event
the natives of Africa will put their family member on a litter and carry
them a hundred miles if need be. They will take them straight to the
nearest mission or government hospital. But here in this land beyond the
Indus River a great spiritual darkness brooded over the people. The
young woman was judged to have 'bad karma'. The spell of death had been
cast. Nothing could be done. And she was going to die.
Eastern mysticism has within it a spiritual poison that cripples the
will. (A trip to Calcutta will drive this lesson home in a hurry.) A
spirit of inevitability hangs over the land. So in the case of this
young woman with her retained placenta nothing was done.
Of course she went on to develop sepsis. She died a couple of days after
her baby was born. This woman, hidden in the folds of the Himalayan
Mountains, had in effect been judged by the spirits of the area. She was
considered to have "bad Karma". Now she was paying for her sins in a
previous incarnation. Nothing that anyone did was going to change
that. So she was left to die.
I shall never forget that woman. Even today when I hear the familiar
strains of eastern mysticism which says in effect "everything is
relative" and "Que Sera, Sera, Whatever will be." I stop. And I remember
that woman.
END QUOTE
That said, today organ harvesting is one of the worse evils that have
emerged from modern science. Once some poor sod is "declared braindead"
it is a goldmine for the whole industry and the queues of rich people
waiting for organs. I've met several recipients personally and also seen
pieces in the news where people have beeen [road-] "accidented" and then
"declared braindead" so their kidneys and other parts could be given to
ruling polticians and their families, (who in some cases did not
survive)
Mike Davis
Oct 19, 2021, 8:20:05 AM10/19/21
to
On 18/10/2021 17:31, Jason wrote:
the Lords' proposals for "Assisted suicide".
[See https://righttolife.org.uk/news#end_life ]
Jason
Oct 19, 2021, 3:49:17 PM10/19/21
to
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:48:13 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 17:31, Jason wrote:
>
>> These are all very good questions, to which I suspect it is impossible
>> to come up with a good answer.
>
> I agree.
>
>> You see many similar arguments used in favour of euthanasia, which from
>> a "human suffering" angle look similar to your last paragraph.
>
> I think there is a difference between refraining from an action that
> would prolong life and performing and action that would shorten life.
> The distinction is probably a nice one, but I think it exists and is
> valid.
>
> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
It has a different slant, certainly, but from a moral angle, I disagree
> On 18/10/2021 17:31, Jason wrote:
>
>> These are all very good questions, to which I suspect it is impossible
>> to come up with a good answer.
>
> I agree.
>
>> You see many similar arguments used in favour of euthanasia, which from
>> a "human suffering" angle look similar to your last paragraph.
>
> I think there is a difference between refraining from an action that
> would prolong life and performing and action that would shorten life.
> The distinction is probably a nice one, but I think it exists and is
> valid.
>
> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
that it is very different. Is it "morally very different" if someone
dies through inaction compared to action? I guess this is a root of the
famous "trolley problem":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
>> Aside from the obvious "thou shall not kill"
>> arguments, one of the key problems even for proponents is the slippery
>> slope: it might start as an idea to alleviate intolerable suffering
>> when there is no hope of improvement in health but ends up as "I don't
>> want to be a burden on my family".
>
> And, as we have seen in Holland, the slippery slope is there and people
> are gleefully slipping down it.
appreciate they they can present a real risk. I'm not sure how gleeful
anyone involved is however.....
Jason
Oct 19, 2021, 3:50:04 PM10/19/21
to
those earlier in this thread. Let's ignore for a moment "slippery slope"
arguments, and look at the matter in hand.
Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life, I've
done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let me call
it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the decision for
myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's finite budget to
better treat others".
If he was to be helped with suicide, would you say this is more, less, or
equally moral than a hospital accountant deciding which drugs they can
afford to treat which people, and base the decisions instead on finance?
As mentioned in an earlier thread, I appreciate there is some difference
between someone dying through inaction rather than action, but from a
moral angle, is it as clear as all that?
Kendall K. Down
Oct 19, 2021, 4:00:07 PM10/19/21
to
On 19/10/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life, I've
> done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let me call
> it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the decision for
> myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's finite budget to
> better treat others".
I am well aware that doctors have been quietly killing patients (sorry,
> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life, I've
> done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let me call
> it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the decision for
> myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's finite budget to
> better treat others".
helping them to die) for years. I disapprove of them "playing god" like
that and without accountability.
Which is why I approve of what has been the British solution: if X feels
that his wife is in unendurable pain and with her consent puts a plastic
bag over her head, let him be arrest, charged with murder and tried. And
then let the jury, having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill, finds him not
guilty.
If the jury is not satisfied, then he receives deserved punishment.
> As mentioned in an earlier thread, I appreciate there is some difference
> between someone dying through inaction rather than action, but from a
> moral angle, is it as clear as all that?
does appear to be a recognised difference.
There was a case a few years back where someone was injured and a
bystander failed to perform some simple action that could have saved his
life. When charged with manslaughter, the bystander defended himself by
saying that he was not trained, he could not be certain that doing X
would help the person or harm him, and therefore he took no action. If
memory serves, he was acquitted, though the feeling of the court was
that he should have done something!
Kendall K. Down
Oct 19, 2021, 4:10:07 PM10/19/21
to
On 19/10/2021 18:19, Jason wrote:
>> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
>> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
>> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
> It has a different slant, certainly, but from a moral angle, I disagree
> that it is very different. Is it "morally very different" if someone
> dies through inaction compared to action? I guess this is a root of the
> famous "trolley problem":
I hope you noticed the caveat "defendable reasons". Obviously if you
>> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
>> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
>> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
> It has a different slant, certainly, but from a moral angle, I disagree
> that it is very different. Is it "morally very different" if someone
> dies through inaction compared to action? I guess this is a root of the
> famous "trolley problem":
simply denied the life-saving medicine on a whim or because the person
was of an unfashionable colour or culture or faith, that would not
constitute "defendable reasons".
>> And, as we have seen in Holland, the slippery slope is there and people
>> are gleefully slipping down it.
> Indeed, and while I don't generally like "slippery slope" arguments, I do
> appreciate they they can present a real risk. I'm not sure how gleeful
> anyone involved is however.....
associated with glee! A perfectly healthy girl killed because she was
depressed. A woman who changed her mind held down and injected with the
fatal drug. Pre-pubescent children allowed to kill themselves.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 19, 2021, 4:10:08 PM10/19/21
to
On 19/10/2021 13:10, Mike Davis wrote:
> I've just written to a small group of peers asking them to vote against
> the Lords' proposals for "Assisted suicide".
I did the same.
> I've just written to a small group of peers asking them to vote against
> the Lords' proposals for "Assisted suicide".
Kendall K. Down
Oct 19, 2021, 4:10:09 PM10/19/21
to
On 19/10/2021 03:18, Madhu wrote:
> It is a racket. I'm afraid my grandfather was kept on life support for
> a long time to jack up the bills and then they refused to release the
> body until the payment was settled in cash. (I wasn't in the country)
I'm sorry to hear it, but not unduly surprised.
> It is a racket. I'm afraid my grandfather was kept on life support for
> a long time to jack up the bills and then they refused to release the
> body until the payment was settled in cash. (I wasn't in the country)
> But then this story is in contrast to the anti-eastern-mysticism tirade
> posted by Gavin Finley on endtimespilgrim.com/bio.htm
Whether it was the case in the story you quote, I do not know. I do know
that it influences the Indian approach to road safety and vehicle
maintenance.
> That said, today organ harvesting is one of the worse evils that have
> emerged from modern science.
100,000 political dissidents a year (largely Uighurs) to obtain their
organs. Some are more or less killed to order because they are a tissue
match for a wealthy or important Chinese party member.
Jason
Oct 20, 2021, 3:31:36 PM10/20/21
to
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:57:08 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
>> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life,
>> I've done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let
>> me call it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the
>> decision for myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's
>> finite budget to better treat others".
>
> I am well aware that doctors have been quietly killing patients (sorry,
> helping them to die) for years. I disapprove of them "playing god" like
> that and without accountability.
>
> Which is why I approve of what has been the British solution: if X feels
> that his wife is in unendurable pain and with her consent puts a plastic
> bag over her head, let him be arrest, charged with murder and tried. And
> then let the jury, having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
> pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill, finds him not
> guilty.
>
> If the jury is not satisfied, then he receives deserved punishment.
Yes, your "British" solution has a certain practical appeal, but I don't
> On 19/10/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
>> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life,
>> I've done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let
>> me call it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the
>> decision for myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's
>> finite budget to better treat others".
>
> I am well aware that doctors have been quietly killing patients (sorry,
> helping them to die) for years. I disapprove of them "playing god" like
> that and without accountability.
>
> Which is why I approve of what has been the British solution: if X feels
> that his wife is in unendurable pain and with her consent puts a plastic
> bag over her head, let him be arrest, charged with murder and tried. And
> then let the jury, having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
> pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill, finds him not
> guilty.
>
> If the jury is not satisfied, then he receives deserved punishment.
think it's the right way to go. I don't think it benefits person X to
know that he may or may not receive "deserved punishment" based on the
particular judge/jury on the day: such actions should either be permitted
or not. Moreover, even if found guilty, the other party is already dead
so it doesn't help them very much, nor would the prospect of your loved
one facing a court battle that could result in a serious charge do
anything to provide much comfort in their final moments...
If such assisted suicides are permitted, then, I agree that your comment:
> having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
> pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill,
>> As mentioned in an earlier thread, I appreciate there is some
>> difference between someone dying through inaction rather than action,
>> but from a moral angle, is it as clear as all that?
>
> To a casuist perhaps it is not clear. In practical terms, however, there
> does appear to be a recognised difference.
>
> There was a case a few years back where someone was injured and a
> bystander failed to perform some simple action that could have saved his
> life. When charged with manslaughter, the bystander defended himself by
> saying that he was not trained, he could not be certain that doing X
> would help the person or harm him, and therefore he took no action. If
> memory serves, he was acquitted, though the feeling of the court was
> that he should have done something!
train in the law you will need to think through many such case studies.
What if by "inaction" for example you don't feed them until they starve
to death? Is that different from an "action" of administering an
overdose of painkillers or something?
Jason
Oct 20, 2021, 3:31:53 PM10/20/21
to
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 21:00:51 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 18:19, Jason wrote:
>
>>> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
>>> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
>>> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
>
>> It has a different slant, certainly, but from a moral angle, I disagree
>> that it is very different. Is it "morally very different" if someone
>> dies through inaction compared to action? I guess this is a root of
>> the famous "trolley problem":
>
> I hope you noticed the caveat "defendable reasons". Obviously if you
> simply denied the life-saving medicine on a whim or because the person
> was of an unfashionable colour or culture or faith, that would not
> constitute "defendable reasons".
I think that goes without saying.
> On 19/10/2021 18:19, Jason wrote:
>
>>> Thus I think it is a very different moral matter to *not* give someone
>>> an expensive medicine (for what we hope are defendable reasons) and to
>>> actually give someone a medicine whose only purpose is to kill.
>
>> It has a different slant, certainly, but from a moral angle, I disagree
>> that it is very different. Is it "morally very different" if someone
>> dies through inaction compared to action? I guess this is a root of
>> the famous "trolley problem":
>
> I hope you noticed the caveat "defendable reasons". Obviously if you
> simply denied the life-saving medicine on a whim or because the person
> was of an unfashionable colour or culture or faith, that would not
> constitute "defendable reasons".
>>> And, as we have seen in Holland, the slippery slope is there and
>>> people are gleefully slipping down it.
>
>> Indeed, and while I don't generally like "slippery slope" arguments, I
>> do appreciate they they can present a real risk. I'm not sure how
>> gleeful anyone involved is however.....
>
> Some of the recent cases in Holland certainly exemplify the insoucience
> associated with glee! A perfectly healthy girl killed because she was
> depressed. A woman who changed her mind held down and injected with the
> fatal drug. Pre-pubescent children allowed to kill themselves.
minds of anyone when thinking about such tragic cases.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 20, 2021, 3:40:08 PM10/20/21
to
On 20/10/2021 17:32, Jason wrote:
>> Some of the recent cases in Holland certainly exemplify the insoucience
>> associated with glee! A perfectly healthy girl killed because she was
>> depressed. A woman who changed her mind held down and injected with the
>> fatal drug. Pre-pubescent children allowed to kill themselves.
> I don't think the words "insoucience" or "glee" would ever enter the
> minds of anyone when thinking about such tragic cases.
That's how it appears to this outside observer. (Incidentally, the
>> Some of the recent cases in Holland certainly exemplify the insoucience
>> associated with glee! A perfectly healthy girl killed because she was
>> depressed. A woman who changed her mind held down and injected with the
>> fatal drug. Pre-pubescent children allowed to kill themselves.
> I don't think the words "insoucience" or "glee" would ever enter the
> minds of anyone when thinking about such tragic cases.
doctor who killed the woman who had changed her mind did face court over
it, but my recollection is that he got away with it in the end.)
Kendall K. Down
Oct 20, 2021, 3:50:07 PM10/20/21
to
On 20/10/2021 17:25, Jason wrote:
> Yes, your "British" solution has a certain practical appeal, but I don't
> think it's the right way to go.
I agree with the disadvantages that you point out, but the big advantage
> Yes, your "British" solution has a certain practical appeal, but I don't
> think it's the right way to go.
is that the one who does the killing knows that his actions will be
scrutinised. The uncertainty of a jury's mood is the big disadvantage,
but in theory the jury will bring humanity to the decision, something
that a panel of medical experts might not (in fact, probably would not).
> What if by "inaction" for example you don't feed them until they starve
> to death? Is that different from an "action" of administering an
> overdose of painkillers or something?
the terminally ill to death? It has been officially abandoned but I'll
bet it still goes on!
My answer would be that the "inaction" you describe is culpable because
it is omitting to do something that would normally be done, whereas a
new and expensive medicine is *not* something normally done.
Adam Funk
Oct 21, 2021, 7:20:06 AM10/21/21
to
untreatable terminal cancer. He killed himself before he started
visibly deteriorating specifically so his family wouldn't have to
waste years of their lives hanging around a hospital bed watching him
die slowly. (It was set in the USA, so he might have also wanted to
avoid draining the family finances.) IMO that was an honorable thing
to do.
--
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
--- Mark Twain
Adam Funk
Oct 21, 2021, 7:40:09 AM10/21/21
to
On 2021-10-19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
>> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life, I've
>> done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let me call
>> it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the decision for
>> myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's finite budget to
>> better treat others".
>
> I am well aware that doctors have been quietly killing patients (sorry,
> helping them to die) for years. I disapprove of them "playing god" like
> that and without accountability.
>
> Which is why I approve of what has been the British solution: if X feels
> that his wife is in unendurable pain and with her consent puts a plastic
> bag over her head, let him be arrest, charged with murder and tried. And
> then let the jury, having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
> pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill, finds him not
> guilty.
>
> If the jury is not satisfied, then he receives deserved punishment.
You're relying on jury nullification. Most people aren't aware of that
> On 19/10/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> Suppose that person A is on expensive drugs, is in constant pain with a
>> self-stated poor quality of life, and states "I've had a good life, I've
>> done all I want, my health is now quickly degrading, please, let me call
>> it a day while I'm still of sound mind and able to make the decision for
>> myself. This would additionally allow the hospital's finite budget to
>> better treat others".
>
> I am well aware that doctors have been quietly killing patients (sorry,
> helping them to die) for years. I disapprove of them "playing god" like
> that and without accountability.
>
> Which is why I approve of what has been the British solution: if X feels
> that his wife is in unendurable pain and with her consent puts a plastic
> bag over her head, let him be arrest, charged with murder and tried. And
> then let the jury, having satisfied itself that the woman really was in
> pain, really did want to die, really was terminally ill, finds him not
> guilty.
>
> If the jury is not satisfied, then he receives deserved punishment.
right and judges and prosecutors will not allow them to be informed of
it during a trial.
--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]
Jason
Oct 21, 2021, 3:15:57 PM10/21/21
to
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:41:54 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 17:25, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes, your "British" solution has a certain practical appeal, but I
>> don't think it's the right way to go.
>
> I agree with the disadvantages that you point out, but the big advantage
> is that the one who does the killing knows that his actions will be
> scrutinised. The uncertainty of a jury's mood is the big disadvantage,
> but in theory the jury will bring humanity to the decision, something
> that a panel of medical experts might not (in fact, probably would not).
That's a fair point about the resulting scrutiny. I think you made the
> On 20/10/2021 17:25, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes, your "British" solution has a certain practical appeal, but I
>> don't think it's the right way to go.
>
> I agree with the disadvantages that you point out, but the big advantage
> is that the one who does the killing knows that his actions will be
> scrutinised. The uncertainty of a jury's mood is the big disadvantage,
> but in theory the jury will bring humanity to the decision, something
> that a panel of medical experts might not (in fact, probably would not).
case recently in another thread that we are more likely to do the "right
thing" when you know you are being watched....
>> What if by "inaction" for example you don't feed them until they starve
>> to death? Is that different from an "action" of administering an
>> overdose of painkillers or something?
>
> What was that - the "Liverpool Pathway" or some such term for starving
> the terminally ill to death? It has been officially abandoned but I'll
> bet it still goes on!
>
> My answer would be that the "inaction" you describe is culpable because
> it is omitting to do something that would normally be done,
the person wants / does not want to be fed? For example, I don't think
you can force people on hunger strikes to eat, and I believe there have
been deaths associated with this.
> whereas a
> new and expensive medicine is *not* something normally done.
it is trying to escape from a life-and-death moral decision by turning it
into a financial one. Where would you have the cutoff? If an aspirin
per day is sufficient to prolong life (say), what if you withhold it?
Would you need to define "new and expensive" and have some cutoff point?
Jason
Oct 21, 2021, 3:16:24 PM10/21/21
to
never filled me with either of these values....
I only vaguely remember the story, but if you're referring to the case
I'm thinking of, it was complicated as she had made her wishes clear on
many occasions over a long period, she was suffering from advanced
dementia, and her family backed the process right up to the end as she
had made it clear that she would rather peacefully die than dwindle away
in a home. A complex, thankfully rare, and very tragic case.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 21, 2021, 3:40:07 PM10/21/21
to
On 21/10/2021 13:31, Jason wrote:
> I only vaguely remember the story, but if you're referring to the case
> I'm thinking of, it was complicated as she had made her wishes clear on
> many occasions over a long period, she was suffering from advanced
> dementia, and her family backed the process right up to the end as she
> had made it clear that she would rather peacefully die than dwindle away
> in a home. A complex, thankfully rare, and very tragic case.
That's the one. She stated that she wanted to die, but then, when it
> I only vaguely remember the story, but if you're referring to the case
> I'm thinking of, it was complicated as she had made her wishes clear on
> many occasions over a long period, she was suffering from advanced
> dementia, and her family backed the process right up to the end as she
> had made it clear that she would rather peacefully die than dwindle away
> in a home. A complex, thankfully rare, and very tragic case.
came down to it, she changed her mind. Her family and doctor denied that
she was mentally capable of changing her mind and went ahead and killed
her anyway, holding her down by force while the drug was injected.
It's a dangerous world when a *woman* is not allowed to change her mind!
Kendall K. Down
Oct 21, 2021, 3:50:07 PM10/21/21
to
On 21/10/2021 13:17, Jason wrote:
> In this circumstance, does the culpability or otherwise depend on whether
> the person wants / does not want to be fed? For example, I don't think
> you can force people on hunger strikes to eat, and I believe there have
> been deaths associated with this.
I know, I know. Another reason why a book of rules would be so totally
> In this circumstance, does the culpability or otherwise depend on whether
> the person wants / does not want to be fed? For example, I don't think
> you can force people on hunger strikes to eat, and I believe there have
> been deaths associated with this.
inadequate; every case is different and every case must be judged on its
own merits - preferably by someone not involved in the case. (ie. a jury).
> I see difficulty with this part of the argument, as it seems to me that
> it is trying to escape from a life-and-death moral decision by turning it
> into a financial one. Where would you have the cutoff? If an aspirin
> per day is sufficient to prolong life (say), what if you withhold it?
> Would you need to define "new and expensive" and have some cutoff point?
(or some such phrase) by which they attempt to assess whether a
particular medicine offers value for money or whether it is worth
prescribing in a particular case. Such measures are, in my opinion,
highly invidious, but on the other hand, it is difficult to think of a
better alternative!
Kendall K. Down
Oct 21, 2021, 4:00:07 PM10/21/21
to
On 21/10/2021 12:15, Adam Funk wrote:
> You're relying on jury nullification. Most people aren't aware of that
> right and judges and prosecutors will not allow them to be informed of
> it during a trial.
No, I don't believe that I am. Even in ordinary cases the jury may be
> You're relying on jury nullification. Most people aren't aware of that
> right and judges and prosecutors will not allow them to be informed of
> it during a trial.
asked to decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or justifiable
homicide (in the case of self-defence). In these cases the jury is asked
to do nothing more than that.
The defendant admits that he killed the person but his defence is that
it was an act of mercy, desired by the dead person (or would have been
desired if the dead person had been able to think for themselves). There
is thus no conflict of evidence (except possibly evidence of motive). I
do not think that the judge normally directs the jury to any particular
verdict, so again, it is not jury nullification.
Do you really mean that the defence is not permitted to advance jury
nullification? If so, I'm afraid that I do not believe you.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 21, 2021, 4:00:08 PM10/21/21
to
On 21/10/2021 12:13, Adam Funk wrote:
> I saw a film years ago with a subplot in which one character had
> untreatable terminal cancer. He killed himself before he started
> visibly deteriorating specifically so his family wouldn't have to
> waste years of their lives hanging around a hospital bed watching him
> die slowly. (It was set in the USA, so he might have also wanted to
> avoid draining the family finances.) IMO that was an honorable thing
> to do.
It may have been admirable and honourable, but it was not a thing that a
> I saw a film years ago with a subplot in which one character had
> untreatable terminal cancer. He killed himself before he started
> visibly deteriorating specifically so his family wouldn't have to
> waste years of their lives hanging around a hospital bed watching him
> die slowly. (It was set in the USA, so he might have also wanted to
> avoid draining the family finances.) IMO that was an honorable thing
> to do.
Christian could do (in my opinion). Our lives belong to God and He will
put an end to them in His own good time.
Jason
Oct 22, 2021, 2:11:46 PM10/22/21
to
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 12:13:50 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> I saw a film years ago with a subplot in which one character had
> untreatable terminal cancer. He killed himself before he started visibly
> deteriorating specifically so his family wouldn't have to waste years of
> their lives hanging around a hospital bed watching him die slowly. (It
> was set in the USA, so he might have also wanted to avoid draining the
> family finances.) IMO that was an honorable thing to do.
Yes, in spite of the few cases (like those mentioned elsewhere here)
> I saw a film years ago with a subplot in which one character had
> untreatable terminal cancer. He killed himself before he started visibly
> deteriorating specifically so his family wouldn't have to waste years of
> their lives hanging around a hospital bed watching him die slowly. (It
> was set in the USA, so he might have also wanted to avoid draining the
> family finances.) IMO that was an honorable thing to do.
which make the news, I understand that the vast majority of those seeking
assisted suicide are in that sort of position and take a similar view.
Jason
Oct 22, 2021, 2:12:26 PM10/22/21
to
you have made similar statements yourself to this effect) that killing in
a war conflict setting is not the same as murder, and is
"acceptable" (for some value of that term). It seems an odd contradiction
therefore that if you fight for your country and its values but are
killed, that is morally OK, but if instead you are killed at your own
request to alleviate terminal suffering, that is not morally OK. How do
you distinguish between these?
Jason
Oct 22, 2021, 2:12:59 PM10/22/21
to
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:43:48 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 13:17, Jason wrote:
>
>> In this circumstance, does the culpability or otherwise depend on
>> whether the person wants / does not want to be fed? For example, I
>> don't think you can force people on hunger strikes to eat, and I
>> believe there have been deaths associated with this.
>
> I know, I know. Another reason why a book of rules would be so totally
> inadequate; every case is different and every case must be judged on its
> own merits - preferably by someone not involved in the case. (ie. a
> jury).
I agree with that, especially the first part. I can't make my mind up
> On 21/10/2021 13:17, Jason wrote:
>
>> In this circumstance, does the culpability or otherwise depend on
>> whether the person wants / does not want to be fed? For example, I
>> don't think you can force people on hunger strikes to eat, and I
>> believe there have been deaths associated with this.
>
> I know, I know. Another reason why a book of rules would be so totally
> inadequate; every case is different and every case must be judged on its
> own merits - preferably by someone not involved in the case. (ie. a
> jury).
about the last clause.... I agree that someone "dispassionate" and
disconnected from the case is ideal like you say. On the other hand I
would imagine that someone does not decide to take this course of action
on a whim, and I would imagine there would have been a great deal of
thought and discussion gone into the decision over an extended period of
time. Therefore, you would think that the friends/family/medical
professionals of the individual concerned would have a much fuller
picture than even a well-prepared jury could ever manage.
>> I see difficulty with this part of the argument, as it seems to me that
>> it is trying to escape from a life-and-death moral decision by turning
>> it into a financial one. Where would you have the cutoff? If an
>> aspirin per day is sufficient to prolong life (say), what if you
>> withhold it? Would you need to define "new and expensive" and have some
>> cutoff point?
>
> I know. NICE, I believe, has a scale of quality of life adjusted years
> (or some such phrase) by which they attempt to assess whether a
> particular medicine offers value for money or whether it is worth
> prescribing in a particular case. Such measures are, in my opinion,
> highly invidious, but on the other hand, it is difficult to think of a
> better alternative!
Jason
Oct 22, 2021, 2:13:31 PM10/22/21
to
changing her mind---the process should at least be halted and re-
assessed. If it turned out that she actually was now beyond any capacity
for thought, that creates a fresh dilemma: after all the reason many
people make this decision when they are capable is precisely so that
their wishes are clear when they can no longer think for themselves.
I think you stated that the doctor was not found guilty ("let off" I
think was the term you used), so maybe the judge/jury agreed with both
the family and the doctor that this was the case. Most families, I would
think, would not be prepared to "hold down [a family member] by force"
while a lethal injection was given unless they were clear in their minds
it was the right thing to do, and certainly not convince a doctor
likewise if he disagreed. If that's the case, and family / doctor /
judge / jury thought that the process was the correct one, then it's hard
for me (as a distant bystander) to assert that it was the wrong decision.
[I'm not commenting on the morality of the whole assisted suicide thing
here, just this specific case].
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:30:10 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 18:00, Jason wrote:
>> It's a dangerous world when a *woman* is not allowed to change her mind!
> I would agree that if she changed her mind---even the merest hint of
> changing her mind---the process should at least be halted and re-
> assessed.
Indeed.
>> It's a dangerous world when a *woman* is not allowed to change her mind!
> I would agree that if she changed her mind---even the merest hint of
> changing her mind---the process should at least be halted and re-
> assessed.
> If it turned out that she actually was now beyond any capacity
> for thought, that creates a fresh dilemma: after all the reason many
> people make this decision when they are capable is precisely so that
> their wishes are clear when they can no longer think for themselves.
was proof that she was sane! (Remember Catch-22?)
> I think you stated that the doctor was not found guilty ("let off" I
> think was the term you used), so maybe the judge/jury agreed with both
> the family and the doctor that this was the case.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:30:11 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 17:48, Jason wrote:
> I agree with that, especially the first part. I can't make my mind up
> about the last clause.... I agree that someone "dispassionate" and
> disconnected from the case is ideal like you say. On the other hand I
> would imagine that someone does not decide to take this course of action
> on a whim, and I would imagine there would have been a great deal of
> thought and discussion gone into the decision over an extended period of
> time. Therefore, you would think that the friends/family/medical
> professionals of the individual concerned would have a much fuller
> picture than even a well-prepared jury could ever manage.
Nonetheless, if a case of assisted suicide is to be scrutinised, that
> I agree with that, especially the first part. I can't make my mind up
> about the last clause.... I agree that someone "dispassionate" and
> disconnected from the case is ideal like you say. On the other hand I
> would imagine that someone does not decide to take this course of action
> on a whim, and I would imagine there would have been a great deal of
> thought and discussion gone into the decision over an extended period of
> time. Therefore, you would think that the friends/family/medical
> professionals of the individual concerned would have a much fuller
> picture than even a well-prepared jury could ever manage.
scrutiny should not be done by doctors (they all stick together) or by
relatives of the perpetrator (probably ditto). Which leaves an
independent jury as the best option.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 22, 2021, 2:30:11 PM10/22/21
to
On 22/10/2021 17:32, Jason wrote:
> But does it not seem odd that most Christians (I am assuming, and I think
> you have made similar statements yourself to this effect) that killing in
> a war conflict setting is not the same as murder, and is
> "acceptable" (for some value of that term). It seems an odd contradiction
> therefore that if you fight for your country and its values but are
> killed, that is morally OK, but if instead you are killed at your own
> request to alleviate terminal suffering, that is not morally OK. How do
> you distinguish between these?
You do not go into battle confident that you will not survive. You hope
> But does it not seem odd that most Christians (I am assuming, and I think
> you have made similar statements yourself to this effect) that killing in
> a war conflict setting is not the same as murder, and is
> "acceptable" (for some value of that term). It seems an odd contradiction
> therefore that if you fight for your country and its values but are
> killed, that is morally OK, but if instead you are killed at your own
> request to alleviate terminal suffering, that is not morally OK. How do
> you distinguish between these?
that you will and you probably take steps to increase your chances of
survival - from body armour to training.
That is the difference.
Adam Funk
Oct 22, 2021, 2:50:07 PM10/22/21
to
God wants someone who is dying and suffering to drag it out and make
his family miserable too.
--
In Fortran, GOD is REAL (unless declared INTEGER).
Adam Funk
Oct 22, 2021, 3:10:07 PM10/22/21
to
On 2021-10-21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 12:15, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> You're relying on jury nullification. Most people aren't aware of that
>> right and judges and prosecutors will not allow them to be informed of
>> it during a trial.
>
> No, I don't believe that I am. Even in ordinary cases the jury may be
> asked to decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or justifiable
> homicide (in the case of self-defence). In these cases the jury is asked
> to do nothing more than that.
The laws on homicide provide for a few specific affirmative defences
>
>> You're relying on jury nullification. Most people aren't aware of that
>> right and judges and prosecutors will not allow them to be informed of
>> it during a trial.
>
> No, I don't believe that I am. Even in ordinary cases the jury may be
> asked to decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or justifiable
> homicide (in the case of self-defence). In these cases the jury is asked
> to do nothing more than that.
like self-defence, but euthanasia isn't one of them and there are none
in the law against assisted suicide.
There is a policy that makes prosecution for assisted suicide "less
likely to be required" if "the suspect was wholly motivated by
compassion", but that's it.
<https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide>
> The defendant admits that he killed the person but his defence is that
> it was an act of mercy, desired by the dead person (or would have been
> desired if the dead person had been able to think for themselves). There
> is thus no conflict of evidence (except possibly evidence of motive). I
> do not think that the judge normally directs the jury to any particular
> verdict, so again, it is not jury nullification.
>
> Do you really mean that the defence is not permitted to advance jury
> nullification? If so, I'm afraid that I do not believe you.
Mike Davis
Oct 22, 2021, 3:30:07 PM10/22/21
to
On 19/10/2021 13:10, Mike Davis wrote:
> I've just written to a small group of peers asking them to vote against
> the Lords' proposals for "Assisted suicide".
>
> [See https://righttolife.org.uk/news#end_life ]
> I've just written to a small group of peers asking them to vote against
> the Lords' proposals for "Assisted suicide".
>
Just in (I quote):
"The Second Reading debate of Baroness Meacher’s assisted suicide Bill
has just ended. Following mass opposition from over 60 Peers who spoke
against the Bill in the debate, Baroness Meacher has not taken her
assisted suicide Bill to a vote!
"This is an excellent outcome.
"The assisted suicide lobby would likely have pushed for a vote at the
Second Reading if they felt they had the numbers to win. However, it
looks like they realised that they would be unlikely to have sufficient
support to win a vote today.
"The Bill is now unlikely to be given time in Parliament to be debated
in the House of Commons and become law, given that it is not supported
by the Government."
Mike
--
Mike Davis
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 3:10:07 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 19:47, Adam Funk wrote:
> The laws on homicide provide for a few specific affirmative defences
> like self-defence, but euthanasia isn't one of them and there are none
> in the law against assisted suicide.
Exactly.
> The laws on homicide provide for a few specific affirmative defences
> like self-defence, but euthanasia isn't one of them and there are none
> in the law against assisted suicide.
> There is a policy that makes prosecution for assisted suicide "less
> likely to be required" if "the suspect was wholly motivated by
> compassion", but that's it.
>> Do you really mean that the defence is not permitted to advance jury
>> nullification? If so, I'm afraid that I do not believe you.
> It's true, though: judges won't allow it.
and find the defendant not guilty. Perhaps it was in an American case?
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 3:10:07 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 19:35, Adam Funk wrote:
> OK, in my opinion it was a morally right thing to do. I don't think
> God wants someone who is dying and suffering to drag it out and make
> his family miserable too.
Were that the case, I am confident that God could put an end to the
> OK, in my opinion it was a morally right thing to do. I don't think
> God wants someone who is dying and suffering to drag it out and make
> his family miserable too.
person's sufferings. Until He does so, it is wrong to go contrary to His
will.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 23, 2021, 3:20:07 AM10/23/21
to
On 22/10/2021 20:23, Mike Davis wrote:
> "The Bill is now unlikely to be given time in Parliament to be debated
> in the House of Commons and become law, given that it is not supported
> by the Government."
Praise the Lord!
> "The Bill is now unlikely to be given time in Parliament to be debated
> in the House of Commons and become law, given that it is not supported
> by the Government."
Jason
Oct 24, 2021, 3:01:00 PM10/24/21
to
are likely to be called on to kill others. And this (apparently) is
justifiable.
Jason
Oct 24, 2021, 3:01:38 PM10/24/21
to
family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
likely to me.
Jason
Oct 24, 2021, 3:02:10 PM10/24/21
to
evidence that the medical profession sticks together under adversity to
put itself in the best light (much like the church or any other
organisation), I can't see that they would (time and again) band together
to defend assisted suicides if they believed it was fundamentally wrong
and not in the patient's interests.
Likewise the family: I simply don't believe that families would
collectively gather round and say "let's bump granny off whether she
likes it or not". There may be some, but I don't believe this will be
anything like the norm.
> Which leaves an
> independent jury as the best option.
see how else you could do it.
However, this should all be moot: the scrutiny should all be done "up
front", before the person dies; otherwise the person is still dead
whether their relatives and health care workers are prosecuted or not.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 24, 2021, 3:20:08 PM10/24/21
to
On 24/10/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
> While it may be possible that absolutely everyone (any witnesses, the
> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
> likely to me.
The fact that the injection was administered against her will and that
> While it may be possible that absolutely everyone (any witnesses, the
> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
> likely to me.
the doctor and family members held her down while it was administered is
not in dispute. All that is in dispute is whether she was mentally able
to change her mind.
My feeling would be that just as there is a presumption of innocence in
criminal cases, so there should be a presumption for life in euthanasia
cases - and thus a desire to live should always be respected, no matter
how inconvenient for relatives and carers.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 24, 2021, 3:20:10 PM10/24/21
to
On 24/10/2021 13:10, Jason wrote:
> Likewise the family: I simply don't believe that families would
> collectively gather round and say "let's bump granny off whether she
> likes it or not". There may be some, but I don't believe this will be
> anything like the norm.
It may not be the norm, but going by what I have seen, it is not as rare
> Likewise the family: I simply don't believe that families would
> collectively gather round and say "let's bump granny off whether she
> likes it or not". There may be some, but I don't believe this will be
> anything like the norm.
as you might think! (I haven't seen any euthanasia cases, thank God, but
I have seen some pretty despicable behaviour by nearest and dearest
eager to get their hands on granny's money.)
> However, this should all be moot: the scrutiny should all be done "up
> front", before the person dies; otherwise the person is still dead
> whether their relatives and health care workers are prosecuted or not.
doctors, who naturally go along with a colleague's judgement.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 24, 2021, 3:30:05 PM10/24/21
to
On 24/10/2021 12:59, Jason wrote:
>> You do not go into battle confident that you will not survive. You hope
>> that you will and you probably take steps to increase your chances of
>> survival - from body armour to training. That is the difference.
> Nevertheless you do go into battle suitably armed, and confident that you
> are likely to be called on to kill others. And this (apparently) is
> justifiable.
If you wish to change the subject, please say that you are doing so.
>> You do not go into battle confident that you will not survive. You hope
>> that you will and you probably take steps to increase your chances of
>> survival - from body armour to training. That is the difference.
> Nevertheless you do go into battle suitably armed, and confident that you
> are likely to be called on to kill others. And this (apparently) is
> justifiable.
The discussion is about suicide, not about the ethics of killing.
Madhu
Oct 25, 2021, 12:40:08 AM10/25/21
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <sl4bfj$vf$2...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:17:07 +0100:
for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
live was forcibly overcome.
Wrote on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:17:07 +0100:
> On 24/10/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
>> While it may be possible that absolutely everyone (any witnesses, the
>> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
>> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
>> likely to me.
>
> The fact that the injection was administered against her will and that
> the doctor and family members held her down while it was administered
> is not in dispute. All that is in dispute is whether she was mentally
> able to change her mind.
I haven't read the details but I gather from upthread that her wish was
>> While it may be possible that absolutely everyone (any witnesses, the
>> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
>> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
>> likely to me.
>
> The fact that the injection was administered against her will and that
> the doctor and family members held her down while it was administered
> is not in dispute. All that is in dispute is whether she was mentally
> able to change her mind.
for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
live was forcibly overcome.
Jason
Oct 25, 2021, 3:08:54 PM10/25/21
to
suicide" where the doctor administers something to help you on your way.
It is this process that I was likening to killing in a warfare scenario.
i.e. it is morally OK to kill an enemy on the battlefield, but not
someone who has actively consented to be killed.
Jason
Oct 25, 2021, 3:09:51 PM10/25/21
to
at all the process should be stopped and re-assessed. 'Inconvenience'
should not come into it whatsoever.
Jason
Oct 25, 2021, 3:10:14 PM10/25/21
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:06:20 +0530, Madhu wrote:
> * "Kendall K. Down" <sl4bfj$vf$2...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:17:07 +0100:
>> On 24/10/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
>> The fact that the injection was administered against her will and that
>> the doctor and family members held her down while it was administered
>> is not in dispute. All that is in dispute is whether she was mentally
>> able to change her mind.
>
> I haven't read the details but I gather from upthread that her wish was
> for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
> peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
> live was forcibly overcome.
A good point and an useful way to look at it.
> * "Kendall K. Down" <sl4bfj$vf$2...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:17:07 +0100:
>> On 24/10/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
>> The fact that the injection was administered against her will and that
>> the doctor and family members held her down while it was administered
>> is not in dispute. All that is in dispute is whether she was mentally
>> able to change her mind.
>
> I haven't read the details but I gather from upthread that her wish was
> for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
> peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
> live was forcibly overcome.
Jason
Oct 25, 2021, 3:10:44 PM10/25/21
to
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:19:39 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 13:10, Jason wrote:
>
>> Likewise the family: I simply don't believe that families would
>> collectively gather round and say "let's bump granny off whether she
>> likes it or not". There may be some, but I don't believe this will be
>> anything like the norm.
>
> It may not be the norm, but going by what I have seen, it is not as rare
> as you might think! (I haven't seen any euthanasia cases, thank God, but
> I have seen some pretty despicable behaviour by nearest and dearest
> eager to get their hands on granny's money.)
I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in this
> On 24/10/2021 13:10, Jason wrote:
>
>> Likewise the family: I simply don't believe that families would
>> collectively gather round and say "let's bump granny off whether she
>> likes it or not". There may be some, but I don't believe this will be
>> anything like the norm.
>
> It may not be the norm, but going by what I have seen, it is not as rare
> as you might think! (I haven't seen any euthanasia cases, thank God, but
> I have seen some pretty despicable behaviour by nearest and dearest
> eager to get their hands on granny's money.)
area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where everyone is
in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And "murder on the
orient express" is the only other account I can think of....
>> However, this should all be moot: the scrutiny should all be done "up
>> front", before the person dies; otherwise the person is still dead
>> whether their relatives and health care workers are prosecuted or not.
>
> Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. "Scrutiny" is by other
> doctors, who naturally go along with a colleague's judgement.
anything bad has happened, but certainly in after-the-fact cases I can
imagine doctors wanting to "get their story straight" for various reasons.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 25, 2021, 3:20:07 PM10/25/21
to
On 25/10/2021 05:36, Madhu wrote:
> I haven't read the details but I gather from upthread that her wish was
> for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
> peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
> live was forcibly overcome.
Indeed, but that is what you get when you legalise killing. Thank God
> I haven't read the details but I gather from upthread that her wish was
> for a peaceful death. And the circumstances of the death do not sound
> peaceful. So her will was not in fact carried out. rather her will to
> live was forcibly overcome.
the proposal was defeated in the House of Lords (and thank God for the
Lords, who frequently have sense than the trendy nitwits in the Commons).
Kendall K. Down
Oct 25, 2021, 3:20:09 PM10/25/21
to
On 25/10/2021 18:05, Jason wrote:
> I do agree with this. As I said, I think if she expressed any reluctance
> at all the process should be stopped and re-assessed. 'Inconvenience'
> should not come into it whatsoever.
Indeed - but better by far not to get involved at all. Leave the hour of
> I do agree with this. As I said, I think if she expressed any reluctance
> at all the process should be stopped and re-assessed. 'Inconvenience'
> should not come into it whatsoever.
death up to God.
Difficult when you don't believe in God, but perhaps, as in the
trenches, there are no atheists on death beds?
Kendall K. Down
Oct 25, 2021, 3:30:07 PM10/25/21
to
On 25/10/2021 17:56, Jason wrote:
> But I'm not changing the subject; we were talking about "assisted
> suicide" where the doctor administers something to help you on your way.
> It is this process that I was likening to killing in a warfare scenario.
> i.e. it is morally OK to kill an enemy on the battlefield, but not
> someone who has actively consented to be killed.
A moment's thought will tell you that granny is not posing a risk to
> But I'm not changing the subject; we were talking about "assisted
> suicide" where the doctor administers something to help you on your way.
> It is this process that I was likening to killing in a warfare scenario.
> i.e. it is morally OK to kill an enemy on the battlefield, but not
> someone who has actively consented to be killed.
anyone, but that chap in uniform with a gun is definitely trying to kill
you, invade your country, rape your women, and oppress everyone in
sight. *That* is why a just war is defensible but euthanasia is not.
As for "active consent", surely desiring to die is the clearest sign
possible of mental incompetance?
Kendall K. Down
Oct 25, 2021, 3:30:07 PM10/25/21
to
On 25/10/2021 18:01, Jason wrote:
> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in this
> area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where everyone is
> in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And "murder on the
> orient express" is the only other account I can think of....
Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in this
> area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where everyone is
> in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And "murder on the
> orient express" is the only other account I can think of....
parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
> Again, I have no information on doctors "clubbing together" *before*
> anything bad has happened, but certainly in after-the-fact cases I can
> imagine doctors wanting to "get their story straight" for various reasons.
Miss C needs an abortion, Doctor B's signature is a foregone conclusion
- and, of course, A does the same for B. They can trust each other -
they're both doctors, you see.
Madhu
Oct 25, 2021, 9:30:09 PM10/25/21
to
* Jason <78udnR5cNZ9gf-v8...@brightview.co.uk> :
Wrote on Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:01:49 -0500:
(grandma/aunt/uncle), /Murder on the orient express/ had a different
plot - it was about executing justice against a murderer-kidnapper who
had evaded the legal system.
Wrote on Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:01:49 -0500:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:19:39 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> It may not be the norm, but going by what I have seen, it is not as rare
>> as you might think! (I haven't seen any euthanasia cases, thank God, but
>> I have seen some pretty despicable behaviour by nearest and dearest
>> eager to get their hands on granny's money.)
>
> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in
> this area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where
> everyone is in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And
> "murder on the orient express" is the only other account I can think
> of....
While almost every Agatha Christie murder revolves around a legacy
>> It may not be the norm, but going by what I have seen, it is not as rare
>> as you might think! (I haven't seen any euthanasia cases, thank God, but
>> I have seen some pretty despicable behaviour by nearest and dearest
>> eager to get their hands on granny's money.)
>
> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in
> this area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where
> everyone is in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And
> "murder on the orient express" is the only other account I can think
> of....
(grandma/aunt/uncle), /Murder on the orient express/ had a different
plot - it was about executing justice against a murderer-kidnapper who
had evaded the legal system.
Adam Funk
Oct 26, 2021, 4:40:07 AM10/26/21
to
and can't be cured.
--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman
Adam Funk
Oct 26, 2021, 4:40:07 AM10/26/21
to
non-doctors generally lack.
--
Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're
told. Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what is
right. (attributed to H. L. Mencken)
Adam Funk
Oct 26, 2021, 4:40:07 AM10/26/21
to
it. You see arguments like that on TV shows but not in real courts.
--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor
Adam Funk
Oct 26, 2021, 4:40:07 AM10/26/21
to
On 2021-10-23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
suffering, but instead of giving him medical treatment to do so, we
tell him all he can do is pray about it.
Some people refuse and discourage medical treatment to cure diseases
or reduce symptoms because they think people should only pray for
healing --- I think you'd agree with me that they are crackpots.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 26, 2021, 3:40:07 PM10/26/21
to
On 26/10/2021 09:26, Adam Funk wrote:
>> As for "active consent", surely desiring to die is the clearest sign
>> possible of mental incompetance?
> I don't see how you can say that about someone who is in constant pain
> and can't be cured.
Surely the time to consider their *rational* mind is while they are
>> As for "active consent", surely desiring to die is the clearest sign
>> possible of mental incompetance?
> I don't see how you can say that about someone who is in constant pain
> and can't be cured.
healthy and fit? Illness can sap and vitiate a person and detract from
their mental fitness.
That said, I do have sympathy for someone as you describe, but there are
so many ways of bringing life to an end that I really do not see that
doctors need to be involved. Just pull a plastic bag over your head and
death from carbon dioxide poisoning is relatively painless (so I am
told). Slash a wrist and bleed to death, whatever.
The danger is that once you involve third parties there is the slippery
slope. Harold Shipman was a criminal; pass the euthanasia bill and he
becomes a hero! (Fortunately it was defeated, but the wretches will try
again and again.)
Kendall K. Down
Oct 26, 2021, 3:40:07 PM10/26/21
to
On 26/10/2021 09:24, Adam Funk wrote:
> The patient is miserable and can't be cured and wants to end his
> suffering, but instead of giving him medical treatment to do so, we
> tell him all he can do is pray about it.
It is all that we can do, as resonsible Christians.
> The patient is miserable and can't be cured and wants to end his
> suffering, but instead of giving him medical treatment to do so, we
> tell him all he can do is pray about it.
> Some people refuse and discourage medical treatment to cure diseases
> or reduce symptoms because they think people should only pray for
> healing --- I think you'd agree with me that they are crackpots.
*cure* their illness, you would rightly regard me as a crackpot. How
would you regard me if I encouraged someone to kill himself a week
before a miracle cure was found?
Shirley's brain tumour is incurable, but the doctors openly told us that
they want to keep her alive as long as possible because new treatments
are being developed all the time and who knows? Even a cure may be
possible in the not too far distant future.[1]
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
disappear would be marvellous. However it could not restore the brain
cells destroyed by the cancer, so those memories are gone forever and
those personality changes are probably permanent.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 26, 2021, 3:40:08 PM10/26/21
to
On 26/10/2021 09:22, Adam Funk wrote:
> The situation in the US is the same as here: judges won't allow
> it. You see arguments like that on TV shows but not in real courts.
Interesting.
> The situation in the US is the same as here: judges won't allow
> it. You see arguments like that on TV shows but not in real courts.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 26, 2021, 3:40:09 PM10/26/21
to
On 26/10/2021 09:25, Adam Funk wrote:
> That's one angle, but OTOH doctors have medical expertise that
> non-doctors generally lack.
Which they can make available to the scrutineers without being involved
> That's one angle, but OTOH doctors have medical expertise that
> non-doctors generally lack.
in the final decision.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 27, 2021, 2:20:05 AM10/27/21
to
On 24/10/2021 13:14, Jason wrote:
> While it may be possible that absolutely everyone (any witnesses, the
> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
> likely to me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/experts/article-10133309/ASK-TONY-41-000-old-life-policies-lawyer-find.html
> family members, the doctors, the judges, the jury, the lawyers) are all
> in cahoots to kill this poor woman against her wishes, this does not seem
> likely to me.
You may be interested in the second story on that page. I suggest that
if euthanasia had been available, that chap who has done the
disappearing act would have gone for it.
Jason
Oct 27, 2021, 3:42:04 PM10/27/21
to
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 20:30:03 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 09:26, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> As for "active consent", surely desiring to die is the clearest sign
>>> possible of mental incompetance?
>
>> I don't see how you can say that about someone who is in constant pain
>> and can't be cured.
Indeed.
> On 26/10/2021 09:26, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>>> As for "active consent", surely desiring to die is the clearest sign
>>> possible of mental incompetance?
>
>> I don't see how you can say that about someone who is in constant pain
>> and can't be cured.
> That said, I do have sympathy for someone as you describe, but there are
> so many ways of bringing life to an end that I really do not see that
> doctors need to be involved. Just pull a plastic bag over your head and
> death from carbon dioxide poisoning is relatively painless (so I am
> told). Slash a wrist and bleed to death, whatever.
life to a close before it becomes (as they see it) a necessity. This is
why other people are involved, so that you can afford to leave it until
you are mentally/physically incapable of performing the act yourself.
And of course for it to happen the the most painless way possible,
perhaps with your loved ones close by.
> The danger is that once you involve third parties there is the slippery
> slope. Harold Shipman was a criminal; pass the euthanasia bill and he
> becomes a hero! (Fortunately it was defeated, but the wretches will try
> again and again.)
won't justify it with any meaningful reply.
Jason
Oct 27, 2021, 3:42:24 PM10/27/21
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:14:53 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> (and thank God for the
> Lords, who frequently have sense than the trendy nitwits in the
> Commons).
Actually, although it goes against every idea of democracy (e.g. people
> (and thank God for the
> Lords, who frequently have sense than the trendy nitwits in the
> Commons).
who have inherited the right or other politician's mates) I have to agree
with that comment!
Jason
Oct 27, 2021, 3:42:41 PM10/27/21
to
involved....
Jason
Oct 27, 2021, 3:43:05 PM10/27/21
to
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 20:19:59 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 18:01, Jason wrote:
>
>> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in
>> this area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where
>> everyone is in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And
>> "murder on the orient express" is the only other account I can think
>> of....
>
> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
You have completely made up a scenario there. In the one *actual* case
> On 25/10/2021 18:01, Jason wrote:
>
>> I have once come across an individual who had a dubious attitude in
>> this area, but I've never personally come across a scenario where
>> everyone is in cahoots to bump of granny for a share of the loot. And
>> "murder on the orient express" is the only other account I can think
>> of....
>
> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
we've discussed here, family members and doctors are known to have been
involved.
>> Again, I have no information on doctors "clubbing together" *before*
>> anything bad has happened, but certainly in after-the-fact cases I can
>> imagine doctors wanting to "get their story straight" for various
>> reasons.
>
> Just look at the abortion racket; if Doctor A signs the form to say that
> Miss C needs an abortion, Doctor B's signature is a foregone conclusion
> - and, of course, A does the same for B. They can trust each other -
> they're both doctors, you see.
process of abortions so I can't comment on that (I didn't even know it
needed two signatures for example). If there is a need for a second
signature, even if it is as 'rubber stamp' as you describe, this is
probably for reasons of scrutiny as we've previously discussed.
Jason
Oct 27, 2021, 3:43:23 PM10/27/21
to
during these debates.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 27, 2021, 3:50:07 PM10/27/21
to
On 27/10/2021 13:57, Jason wrote:
> Actually, although it goes against every idea of democracy (e.g. people
> who have inherited the right or other politician's mates) I have to agree
> with that comment!
I haven't troubled to look up the statistics, but the number of
> Actually, although it goes against every idea of democracy (e.g. people
> who have inherited the right or other politician's mates) I have to agree
> with that comment!
hereditary lords is heavily diluted by political appointments. The point
is not that the lords have inherited, but that they are not beholden to
an electorate and do not have to posture to be sure of re-election.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 27, 2021, 3:50:09 PM10/27/21
to
On 27/10/2021 14:02, Jason wrote:
> I don't think anyone, and I mean *anyone* has that sort of thing in mind
> during these debates.
No? It is the sort of thing that goes on. I knew an old lady who was ill
> I don't think anyone, and I mean *anyone* has that sort of thing in mind
> during these debates.
and went into hospital. By the time she was discharged her son had
already sold her house (which caused her tremendous grief) and she was
shoved into the cheapest home going. She only survived 18 months.
He's another one who, I am sure, would have plugged for euthanasia had
it been available.
Incidentally, here are some details of the case in Holland:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/dutch-woman-euthanized-against-her-will-doctor-was-amanda-prestigiacomo
Kendall K. Down
Oct 27, 2021, 4:00:08 PM10/27/21
to
On 27/10/2021 13:53, Jason wrote:
>> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
>> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
>> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
>> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
>> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
>> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
> You have completely made up a scenario there. In the one *actual* case
> we've discussed here, family members and doctors are known to have been
> involved.
Actually, I haven't. That described a lady I knew in Buckley. As her
>> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
>> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
>> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
>> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
>> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
>> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
> You have completely made up a scenario there. In the one *actual* case
> we've discussed here, family members and doctors are known to have been
> involved.
pastor, I was the only non-family person she ever saw - and the only
family was her daughter (who was indeed plundering her bank account).
When she became aware of it, I had to help her decide whether to involve
the police or not. Against my advice she chose not to, but she did (with
my help) go round to the bank and make sure that the daughter no longer
had access. It nearly broke her heart.
> Perhaps that topic needs a thread of its own as I have no idea of the
> process of abortions so I can't comment on that (I didn't even know it
> needed two signatures for example). If there is a need for a second
> signature, even if it is as 'rubber stamp' as you describe, this is
> probably for reasons of scrutiny as we've previously discussed.
that was the requirement when abortion was first legalised.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 27, 2021, 4:00:09 PM10/27/21
to
On 27/10/2021 13:47, Jason wrote:
> The point surely is that most people don't have any wish to bring their
> life to a close before it becomes (as they see it) a necessity. This is
> why other people are involved, so that you can afford to leave it until
> you are mentally/physically incapable of performing the act yourself.
> And of course for it to happen the the most painless way possible,
> perhaps with your loved ones close by.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9221159/depressed-girl-17-dies-at-euthanasia-clinic-in-holland-after-suffering-unbearable-pain-since-childhood-rape/
> The point surely is that most people don't have any wish to bring their
> life to a close before it becomes (as they see it) a necessity. This is
> why other people are involved, so that you can afford to leave it until
> you are mentally/physically incapable of performing the act yourself.
> And of course for it to happen the the most painless way possible,
> perhaps with your loved ones close by.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/04/17/the-netherlands-is-euthanizing-mentally-disabled-patients-and-people-with-autism/
The last story is particularly worrying. We get all exercised about the
Nazis killing the intellectually disabled, but the Dutch are doing it
and the trendy left thinks they are wonderful.
Mike Davis
Oct 27, 2021, 5:40:07 PM10/27/21
to
Mike
--
Mike Davis
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kendall K. Down
Oct 28, 2021, 2:40:08 AM10/28/21
to
On 27/10/2021 22:30, Mike Davis wrote:
> Nor kowtow to their party whips!
Perhaps not to the same extent, but if they don't follow the government
> Nor kowtow to their party whips!
rulings they lose the whip, don't they?
Mike Davis
Oct 28, 2021, 8:30:07 AM10/28/21
to
On 28/10/2021 07:38, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 22:30, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Nor kowtow to their party whips!
>
> Perhaps not to the same extent, but if they don't follow the government
> rulings they lose the whip, don't they?
Lords, yes, so I believe; but MPs have rough time if they go against them.
> On 27/10/2021 22:30, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Nor kowtow to their party whips!
>
> Perhaps not to the same extent, but if they don't follow the government
> rulings they lose the whip, don't they?
My late friend, Jim Dobbin MP (Lab), told me how rough the process was
when he voted against a bill* as a matter of conscience. He was bullied
by the whips - then the Chief whip, and then sent to be interviewed by
The PM (Gordon Brown). Even for a guy in his 60's, it was tremendous
psychological pressure. In the end, Gordon Brown seemed to sympathise
and the matter was dropped! (IIRC).
*I can't recall which one, but it was probably on a matter of human
rights. Jim was Chair of the all-party committee on Pro-life issues
(which included anti-abortion).
Kendall K. Down
Oct 28, 2021, 2:30:08 PM10/28/21
to
On 28/10/2021 13:27, Mike Davis wrote:
> My late friend, Jim Dobbin MP (Lab), told me how rough the process was
> when he voted against a bill* as a matter of conscience. He was bullied
> by the whips - then the Chief whip, and then sent to be interviewed by
> The PM (Gordon Brown). Even for a guy in his 60's, it was tremendous
> psychological pressure. In the end, Gordon Brown seemed to sympathise
> and the matter was dropped! (IIRC).
I admire people who stand up for principle - even if I disagree with
> My late friend, Jim Dobbin MP (Lab), told me how rough the process was
> when he voted against a bill* as a matter of conscience. He was bullied
> by the whips - then the Chief whip, and then sent to be interviewed by
> The PM (Gordon Brown). Even for a guy in his 60's, it was tremendous
> psychological pressure. In the end, Gordon Brown seemed to sympathise
> and the matter was dropped! (IIRC).
them. That is why I had a lot of time for Tony Benn, even though I
completely disapproved of his politics: he was a guy who made sacrifices
for his beliefs. (I saw something the other day which made me think that
his son does not share his opinions and is, actually, a lord!)
Jason
Oct 31, 2021, 4:21:20 PM10/31/21
to
The first one is different because she simply stopped eating and
drinking. The article then goes on to say, 'Doctors had previously force-
fed the teenager to keep her alive, an experience she described as
"humiliating" and "degrading"'. We were discussing earlier this sort of
thing: is stopping the process of 'force feeding' the girl the same as
administering something to hasten her death? Do you think they should
have continued to force feed her?
And do you truly think "the trendy left think they are wonderful',
because if so I suggest you are mistaken.
Jason
Oct 31, 2021, 4:21:42 PM10/31/21
to
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:52:22 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 13:53, Jason wrote:
>
>>> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
>>> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
>>> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
>>> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
>>> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
>>> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
>
>> You have completely made up a scenario there. In the one *actual* case
>> we've discussed here, family members and doctors are known to have been
>> involved.
>
> Actually, I haven't. That described a lady I knew in Buckley. As her
> pastor, I was the only non-family person she ever saw - and the only
> family was her daughter (who was indeed plundering her bank account).
> When she became aware of it, I had to help her decide whether to involve
> the police or not. Against my advice she chose not to, but she did (with
> my help) go round to the bank and make sure that the daughter no longer
> had access. It nearly broke her heart.
That sounds absolutely tragic and it's good that you were able to help in
> On 27/10/2021 13:53, Jason wrote:
>
>>> Who is "everyone"? By the time granny gets to euthanasia age, her
>>> parents are dead, her siblings are either dead or in a home somewhere,
>>> two of the three children are in Scotland and only visit every second
>>> Christmas (if that) and so it all devolves on the one remaining child
>>> who ostensibly is looking after her but in reality has been plundering
>>> her bank account in a quiet way for the last five years.
>
>> You have completely made up a scenario there. In the one *actual* case
>> we've discussed here, family members and doctors are known to have been
>> involved.
>
> Actually, I haven't. That described a lady I knew in Buckley. As her
> pastor, I was the only non-family person she ever saw - and the only
> family was her daughter (who was indeed plundering her bank account).
> When she became aware of it, I had to help her decide whether to involve
> the police or not. Against my advice she chose not to, but she did (with
> my help) go round to the bank and make sure that the daughter no longer
> had access. It nearly broke her heart.
some way. Though still I would say one person secretly raiding her money
box is one thing, getting all the siblings, doctors and whatnot to hasten
her demise against her wishes is quite another.... I can see why you
would make the connection though, especially if you had the feeling that
all of her children are of the opinion that she is simply a burden: that
perhaps is the most tragic part of all.
Jason
Oct 31, 2021, 4:22:27 PM10/31/21
to
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:47:52 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 14:02, Jason wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone, and I mean *anyone* has that sort of thing in
>> mind during these debates.
>
> No? It is the sort of thing that goes on. I knew an old lady who was ill
> and went into hospital. By the time she was discharged her son had
> already sold her house (which caused her tremendous grief) and she was
> shoved into the cheapest home going. She only survived 18 months.
I'm sure that sort of thing (i.e. offspring who do not have always have
> On 27/10/2021 14:02, Jason wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone, and I mean *anyone* has that sort of thing in
>> mind during these debates.
>
> No? It is the sort of thing that goes on. I knew an old lady who was ill
> and went into hospital. By the time she was discharged her son had
> already sold her house (which caused her tremendous grief) and she was
> shoved into the cheapest home going. She only survived 18 months.
the best interests of their infirm parents in mind). What I'm suggesting
is that these scenarios should have no input into a debate about assisted
euthanasia. I would agree that if it's not something that the infirm
individual actively desires, it should not be carried out in any way
whatsoever: a disgruntled child should not be able to get someone else
bumped off against their wishes.
> Incidentally, here are some details of the case in Holland:
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/dutch-woman-euthanized-against-her-will-
doctor-was-amanda-prestigiacomo
a desire to be euthanised "when she felt that the time was right". So
the question comes down to 'what happens when such an individual is no
longer able to think for themselves'. I can only suggest that the
family, friends, and medical professionals involved in her care over an
extended period are perhaps best placed to know what her wishes would
be. As it mentions in the article, can someone in any meaningful way
change their mind about this when their dementia has reached a stage
where they don't even recognise themselves? How do you best carry out
their wishes?
Again, it's a very tragic (and rare, as it states in the article) case,
but I think I would agree that if there is any doubt whatsoever, then
euthanasia should not go ahead.
Jason
Oct 31, 2021, 4:23:12 PM10/31/21
to
bulk of the 700 or so are appointed by politicians. The cynical among us
might think that you can boost your chances by making a large donation to
party coffers etc....
> The point is [...] that they are not beholden to
> an electorate and do not have to posture to be sure of re-election.
Yes, which precisely why I described them as "against every idea of
democracy". Of course democracy is not the be-all-and-end-all of methods
of government, but as Winston Churchill is said to have commented, "it is
the worst form of government apart from all the others".
In spite of that, I would agree with you though that the Lords is a 'good
thing', and perhaps unfettered democracy is not really what we want (is
it any different after all to 'mob rule'). I also appreciate the Lords
for being able to push the boundaries of strict party lines.
Nevertheless, saying that someone who has (to make up an example) paid
for a new bar at Party Headquarters should be able to scupper people we
have elected (and it's impossible to vote them out) make me slightly
uneasy....
Kendall K. Down
Oct 31, 2021, 4:30:08 PM10/31/21
to
On 31/10/2021 10:43, Jason wrote:
> The first one is different because she simply stopped eating and
> drinking. The article then goes on to say, 'Doctors had previously force-
> fed the teenager to keep her alive, an experience she described as
> "humiliating" and "degrading"'. We were discussing earlier this sort of
> thing: is stopping the process of 'force feeding' the girl the same as
> administering something to hasten her death? Do you think they should
> have continued to force feed her?
No, I don't. If someone wants to stop eating, let 'em, whether they are
> The first one is different because she simply stopped eating and
> drinking. The article then goes on to say, 'Doctors had previously force-
> fed the teenager to keep her alive, an experience she described as
> "humiliating" and "degrading"'. We were discussing earlier this sort of
> thing: is stopping the process of 'force feeding' the girl the same as
> administering something to hasten her death? Do you think they should
> have continued to force feed her?
this girl or Bobby Sands or Mahatma Ghandi.
> And do you truly think "the trendy left think they are wonderful',
> because if so I suggest you are mistaken.
euthanasia bill.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 31, 2021, 4:30:09 PM10/31/21
to
know about you, but every time we see a doctor it is a different person.
Long gone are the days when you had a family doctor who looked after you
from cradle to grave.
Kendall K. Down
Oct 31, 2021, 4:40:06 PM10/31/21
to
On 31/10/2021 11:24, Jason wrote:
> I think about 10% are hereditary, another few dozen are bishops, but the
> bulk of the 700 or so are appointed by politicians. The cynical among us
> might think that you can boost your chances by making a large donation to
> party coffers etc....
There are undoubtedly people such as you describe, but I wonder how many
> bulk of the 700 or so are appointed by politicians. The cynical among us
> might think that you can boost your chances by making a large donation to
> party coffers etc....
of them take the trouble to attend the Lords? My guess is that they want
the title, but don't want the bother of turning up and listening to
speeches.
> Nevertheless, saying that someone who has (to make up an example) paid
> for a new bar at Party Headquarters should be able to scupper people we
> have elected (and it's impossible to vote them out) make me slightly
> uneasy....
Lords unless they are third generation nobility.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages