Wednesday, August 05, 2009

The No10 Petition against the legalisation of assisted suicide

The irrepressible and indefatigable Nadine Dorries intends to lay down a private member’s bill in the autumn to counter the Law Lords’ demand that the law against assisted suicide be ‘clarified’. She opposes moves to permit what Edward Leigh terms 'creeping euthanasia by the back door', and believes that the only clarification needed will be that everyone who helps someone commit suicide should be charged.

It had been assumed that the ‘clarification’ announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions would apply only to those who helped relatives to travel abroad in order to end their lives in places where assisted dying is legal. But yesterday, Keir Starmer said the new rules would apply to those who help people take their lives in the UK as well.

Ms Dorries said: “The Law Lords called for clarification of the existing law; they did not call for Keir Starmer to assume undemocratic legislative powers and create new law.”

She added: “Whilst a few may feel that they would personally benefit should assisted suicide become legal, many more would be subjected to an unbearable pressure and worry over which they would have no control.”

Quite.

In order to assist Ms Dorries, and to express something of the strength of opinion that exists to oppose this sinister ‘clarification’, Cranmer exhorts all of his readers and communicants to sign the No10 petition for the law to remain unchanged.

Until last week, there were only several petitions calling for assisted suicide to be made legal. But now there is one arguing to the contrary. It says:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to retain the law that makes it a criminal offence to assist another person to commit suicide".

The author, Tony Bennett, explains:

“The law currently makes it a criminal offence to assist another person to commit suicide. There has been a stream of media stories about British people travelling to Dignitas in Switzerland to be killed because they wish to end their lives. These are all very tragic stories. However, it is important to note that in recent years no-one in Britain has been prosecuted for taking their relatives to Switzerland to die, or in respect of other cases of assisted suicide in the U.K. But to decriminalise assisted suicide would - as many commentators have observed - make many elderly people vulnerable to relatives who may have ulterior motives for wishing them to die early. The law as it is acts as a deterrent to those wishing to assist a relative to die early. There is therefore a very strong case NOT to change the law, despite the increasing clamour in some quarters for assisted suicide to be made legal.”

Let the strength of feeling be heard the length and breadth of the land: life is sacred; it is the gift of God; it is not for man to terminate or to assist his fellow man in the termination thereof, for that is to defile what is holy and offend against the created order.

62 Comments:

Anonymous philip walling said...

I like Ms Dorries - she's brave, not too clever-clever and has good moral judgment - and of course she's pretty.
What more do you need in a woman?
I wonder if she's married.

5 August 2009 at 09:07  
OpenID scottspeig said...

I always thought the law would easily be clarified by charging the people who assist in suicide....

My esignature is about to be added - Thankyou your grace for informing me. :)

5 August 2009 at 09:24  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Signed.

5 August 2009 at 09:29  
OpenID jobtwenteewun1to3 said...

Your Grace, thank you for this post. My signature has been duly added to the petition. Mr Walling, I do believe Ms Dorries is divorced.

5 August 2009 at 09:30  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

If the law is changed, it will be like every other recent law change which has relaxed a particular situation. It will be stretched far beyond its original intention, just as in the case of abortions.
There will also be a problem of of distinguishing "assisting" suicide from murder.
A rich aunt dies. (Its always a rich aunt in thrillers!) The nephew is charged with murder. There is evidence he bought the poison. His fingerprints are on the glass that contained the poisoned G&T. He admits both facts are correct, but states that his aunt wished to commit suicide and that he was merely assisting her.
Historically, as far as I can ascertain, this problem was one of the many reasons behind the law being as it is, and why the DPP is allowed discretion if he is absolutely sure that the person involved was merely assisting and in no way encouraged the suicide.

I have always thought that Nadine Dorries was a bit of a scatter-brain, but this time she is spot on.

I've just signed the petition.

5 August 2009 at 09:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talented bloke that Tony Bennett

"I left my heart in San Francisco" and now this petition.

5 August 2009 at 10:26  
Anonymous Tom Paine said...

Sorry to quibble (I am a lawyer and as prone to quibbling as clerics are to sanctimony) but the real question at issue here is the definition of "assisting".

I don't believe a victim's consent negates the moral wrong of killing. Godless libertarian though I am, I think "assisting suicide" should be a crime, but only where the assistance is directly relevant to the death, e.g. administering the lethal injection. After all, the would-be suicide could change his/her mind at any time on the journey. Only an action that directly causes the death should count.

I think a jury would take my view, which is why there have been no prosecutions. If there were a legal point here, I would like to think the House of Lords Judicial Committee (now, sadly, "the Supreme Court") would have had the courage to address it, rather than just referring it to the DPP. I suspect the real purpose of the current brouhaha is political; to build momentum for the legalisation of two additional categories of killing.

5 August 2009 at 10:48  
Blogger peter_dtm said...

Your grace

for what is it worth; I have signed.

However I hope everyone realises that the no 10 petition site is a piece of nulabour spin.

NOT ONE petition has resulted in the scum currently masquerading as a democratic government doing anything different.

May as well ask GB to resign ; or for the referendum on the EU or an honest assessment of the economy as expect this unelected incompetent to take any notice of 'the people'; after all; he & his cronies know what is best for you.

5 August 2009 at 10:52  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Isn't this issue a wonderful media diversion from the sickness that is eating this country from the inside out?

5 August 2009 at 12:00  
Anonymous philip walling said...

I too have signed the petition,for what it's worth. As you say, Mr peter_dtm, the scum in government takes less than no notice of such things.
Mr jobtwenteewun1to3, thanks for the info about Ms Dorries - maybe she would have me as her researcher!
And Mr Gnostic, "sickness that is eating this country from inside out" is spot on.
Is something similar not happening in other countries? I feel we are being given the impression that all countries are similarly afflicted (or even worse) but I haven't been abroad for two years, and I suspect it's a bit like living in N Korea or behind the iron curtain - we are being fed awful lies. If the gov could stop us travelling (or make it really hard for most people) they would achieve a great boost to their power.
I can't help thinking that's their aim with this E-Borders business and all the hype about terrorism.

5 August 2009 at 12:28  
Blogger Preacher said...

Philip Walling.
You are so right about what is going on, clever isn't it? The EU Superstate says jump through the hoop and we'll give you a juicy reward when you've enslaved and subjected your people to our rule, the economic crisis is just a step on the way to a cashless society, at which point We will have them at our mercy. No travel unless We know where you are, No ability to buy anything without Our approval, in short NO WAY OUT! don't bother saying anything at this stage though, you'll just be another irritating nutty 'conspiracy theorists' despite the relevant facts to support your case, I mean how could God possibly have seen it coming when John wrote the events shown to him 2000 years in Revelations?

5 August 2009 at 12:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I disagree with Nadine Dorres. Life is not as simple as just saying no. I think if someone expresses the wish to die at a certain stage in their life then they should have the right to do so and the person who assists them should not be charged. BUT there would have to be strict criteria in place in order to be able to differentiate between assisting and murdering.

People who have expressed this wish and I am one of them, should have to put it in writing and lodge it with their solicitor when they are of sound mind. I don’t want to be a burden on society if I loose my marbles or should I get terminally ill and suffer or have a stroke and become unable to speak and do anything for myself.

When the time comes there would have to be the agreements from the Dr treating the person, a good friend and a family member. Also for added security a second opinion from another Dr. If all are in agreement that the person wishing to die had reached said stage that had been set out in their wishes, then the injection could be administered.

Anyone bumping off great aunt Agatha with a dodgy G&T without her written instructions that had been witnessed by her solicitor and all the necessary signatures on her documentation would have to be tried for murder.

5 August 2009 at 14:20  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Preacher

"No way out"? Really? I'm not sure there would be 'no way out', but I agree it might be difficult to get out before it's too late, but to go where?

I was talking to a diplomat earlier this week (I can't go further than that) who told me the word in the corridors of power is that we will be classed by the IMF as a 'failed state' by 2013 if things don't improve. And the even more secret official line is that things won't improve, because they can't. We will then be in the same boat as Romania and the Baltic states as far as credit goes. He said that our scum of a government has no idea what to do other than keep a lid on it by borrowing what it takes until the next election.
After that it's Armageddon, and nobody, not even Cameron will make any difference; the process is inexorable.

Improved schools? Forget it. No teachers, and can't afford to pay them even if we had.
Hospitals, you must be joking, with the number of geriatrics who won't die? And the armies of administrators on public service pensions.
Enterprise? From where and with what capital? And with which young people? There aren't any left in Britain with the driving hunger to succeed who can also read and write. Mandatory 'university' has crushed their enterprise and sapped their will.
Immigrants will take up the slack? Nonsense! Either they will have gone home to Poland or be busy turning the country into an Islamic republic.
Who's going to keep the electricity going, mend the water mains, connect the phones, grow things and make things?
Not the British, because they are either incapable of doing anything practical (because they have been 'educated' stupid by the state) or been aborted before they had the opportunity to be 'educated' - (at the current rate it's one million every five years - that's four million British babies murdered in one generation). Thanks very much David Steel!

That brings me back to emigration. To where? Who will have us? The British have been sustained over the last two decades of decline by a dream of emigrating if things got too bad - 'we can always move to France or Spain if the worst comes to the worst'. Well it has come to the worst and apart from the little matter of being refused permission to travel (E-borders again) who wants a lot of work-shy, feckless Britons fleeing a failed state? And how are you going to sell your house in this market? And even then your pounds won't buy anything much to live in. The only consolation is that it might happen to Europe as well (it always does a bit later than here) although I'm not so sure.

Now I know how people felt in Russia in 1917 as the Bolshevik revolution gathered strength.
Are your worst fears right? Do you leave with nothing but your jewels sown into your coat lining?
It can't get really bad can it? We'll surely survive somehow.
But it got much worse than most people ever imagined and by the time it was obvious what was going on it was too late to leave.
It may be too late for us, now.

5 August 2009 at 14:24  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Mr Walling - you sound like a subject for assisted suicide! If you're really so pessimistic I don't know what's the point of living any longer! Aren't we here to make the world a bit better (if we can) even just for those around us?

5 August 2009 at 15:13  
Anonymous Praise The Holy Lord said...

Always a pleasure my Lord. Nadine is worthy of a few late night fantasies I think GRRRRRRRRR!

5 August 2009 at 15:14  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr oiznop

Depends if you take a micro or macro view of it all.

5 August 2009 at 15:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The macro view is nothing more than a load of micro views. And to make things worse, there are some really stupid people in the world.

implebo to you too!

5 August 2009 at 15:40  
Anonymous philip walling said...

What the hell's implebo?

5 August 2009 at 16:09  
Blogger Preacher said...

Philip Walling.
Yes, you've sort of summed it up.
Oiznop,
Maybe it's not pessism but the fighting spirit coming out. You have to face the facts before you can try to alter the situation. The old saying is "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" but as a new JCB is delivered to NO 10 I think we all get the picture. I for one will not adopt the Ostrich position as one is then in grave danger of becoming Kentucky fried Ostrich.

5 August 2009 at 17:16  
Anonymous Got the Guts to wear God said...

I agree with Marie 1797. If a person wishes to move on to the next stage of life, for there is no death, then so be it! Keeping people alive with drugs is a sickness in itself. Huge pharma profits; keep them sick but keep them alive. It's diabolical to me. The quality of life is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical health. They all have to balance. If there is no quality to your life, then you are what I would term dead anyway...don't mean to offend anybody but why should people suffer?

5 August 2009 at 17:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie and GuttwG - I disagree. There's no need for assisted suicide if you make sure to file a 'do not resuscitate' order. That's what its called in the US - my aunts did the same by another name in the UK. You do it before you're incompetent - that way everybody knows it's what you want. You then die in the natural course of events; and you don't use artificial means to cling to life.

And nobody else needs to get the blame or feel guilty for administering some form of poison. I think the people who ask others to do this for them are as guilty of horror as those who provide the means.

Furthermore, it's a fairly simple thing to file, along with a Will - and probably better for a generation that's been educated into illiteracy.

5 August 2009 at 18:23  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Mr. Walling - Whoever your diplomat is, he's wonderful at preading negative propaganda!! Maybe he read some of the pamphlets people dropped on euroland during WW2?

I think the key to his/their attitude and agenda may be most visible here: "Hospitals, you must be joking, with the number of geriatrics who won't die?"....

What that says to me is: "All those nasty stubborn old Bulldogs who have the nerve to think for themselves..... How can we get rid of them?"

We shouldn't let them talk us into a national form of Assisted Suicide!

Really - Methinks it's Phase III of the world wars, but a new kind of war; and having identified it we need to fight it. I think we're moving into this Phase III here...

But we want leaders; we need a plan; and we have to fight back. Should the situation turn out to be Armageddon - the Death of the World - then we'd know we'd done our moral best.

PS - I don't like that necklace the woman is wearing. Says something about her I can't identify...

5 August 2009 at 19:10  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Some of you guys are scary. I have this vision of the future where you can call the Samaritans, or the SAS (Suicide assistant Sqaud) and be dispensed with. Maybe they could have a facility in the local Library where you just pop yourself into a little microwave machine and people on the Internet can tell you how much they love you and that you are doing the right thing. And normal healthy people could leave really condescending and immature verbal diarrhea in the comments section. Yeah! sounds wicked.

5 August 2009 at 19:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Thank you Anonymous that would be ok should I be admitted to hospital, but what about mental illness where my body is fairly fit but I am unable to communicate in any coherent and lucid way and no longer recognise anyone or my surroundings, am dependent on someone feeding, washing, dressing, and changing my nappies as I could no longer have control over bodily functions. I would want someone to get the Smith and Weston out and put an end to it for me. I would not wish them to feel guilty as they would be doing me a great favour. A do not resuscitate order does not cover all eventualities?

5 August 2009 at 19:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer I was right with you until the last bit.

For whether you are correct on your understanding of what God would actually desire, is immaterial and also counter-productive.

This issue is far too important to be made into a religion v anti-religion debate.

This is about possible state assisted genocide. A thin edge of a very EVIL wedge, it maybe, but the start of a very dangerous road indeed, all of the same.

Not withstanding that anything that FASCIST bitch Polly Toynbee has been told to believe, and then propagate, as a good idea, must by definition and beyond all doubt be profoundly EVIL.

MURDER is MURDER is MURDER.

The only people even half qualified to say that it is not murder, is a court of law, working in conjunction with 12 men/women of sound mind and judgment.

What is wrong with obtaining a COURT ORDER from a judge and a JURY of common people, before assisting in the death of another.

Or is life not worth the court time these days? Or worst still, is finding an uncorrupted judge, and 12 people of sound mind and judgment now impossible?

Atlas Shrugged

5 August 2009 at 20:25  
Anonymous not a machine said...

This law is as unwelcome as GM foods , i can see some may wish to warp what nature is and isnt , but some take all too much grandiosity in mastering what was never theres.

5 August 2009 at 20:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last woman to be hanged in the UK was Ruth Ellis on July 13, 1955 by Albert Pierrepoint who was a prominent hangman in the 20th century in England. The last hanging in Great Britain took place in 1964, when Peter Anthony Allen, at Walton Prison in Liverpool, and Gwynne Owen Evans, at Strangeways Prison in Manchester were executed for the murder of John Alan West.

Now we want to start killing sick people by Jury? Hmmmm

5 August 2009 at 20:42  
Blogger Jobtwenteewun1to3 said...

Mr Walling, I could not say whether the position of researcher for Ms Dorries is currently vacant; although I suspect you would make a superb candidate should it be so. Ms Dorries does however have a delightful blog which is well worth a read. I should start there if I were you. Incidentally, I suspect your many concerns as expressed in your 14:24 post are absolutely correct. A further frightening issue I believe is that the vast majority seem so oblivious to what is happening in our once great country. I believe it was Huxley who once wrote that he feared ‘truth would be lost in a mass of trivia’. How right he was.
Mr GtGtwG 17:23 ‘The quality of life is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical health. They all have to balance. If there is no quality to your life, then you are what I would term dead anyway...don't mean to offend anybody but why should people suffer?’
I find this a tricky concept. Who gets to decide whether an individual’s life whether spiritual, mental, emotional or physical has reached a required minimum level of quality? And on what basis is that decision made?? I live in an area that is sodden with alcoholic excess. It is a small town where everyone knows everyone else. Every Friday & Saturday night the massed crowds head to the local public houses to drink themselves into utter oblivion. Saturday & Sunday mornings will often be spent regurgitating said alcoholic excess into plastic buckets. With the weekend wasted in such manner it is back to the factory production line or Call Centre on Monday morning for many, where there is resentment and hatred of the working week and a deep yearning for Friday night in order that once again alcoholic obliteration may be sought. This may seem a crass generalisation yet I can not emphasise enough how common a lifestyle this is in my home town. Now from my perspective such a lifestyle has absolutely no balance or quality whatsoever. It certainly contains little spiritual, mental, emotional or physical health. Perhaps then, according to your criteria, they should be assisted to access the ‘next stage of life’ .... hmmm, maybe you have a point after all !!!!

5 August 2009 at 21:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody heard of the Cooties? I think it is mainly an American disease, but this VIDEO shows the highly contagious nature of it. It all starts with an idea then spreads like the plague

5 August 2009 at 21:50  
Anonymous The Quack said...

It's crazy to imagine that in the future we could see hospitals with A&E trying to save some poor wretch that has been run over by a Bus, and in the other ward there would be a man and wife suicide ceremony.....Too much cheese at bedtime!

I will recommend this inspirational video about the sacred nature of life and how doctors can sometimes have to make unorthodox prescriptions.

5 August 2009 at 22:09  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

As a fellow lawyer, I agree with Thomas Paine.

My take on it is this.

It surely turns on the question of proximity.

Taking someone on a journey is not sufficiently proximate , it does not necessarily lead to the death. If you prosecute for this would you next prosecute the taxi driver or the daily help who tied the shoes?

An awful lot can be achieved with simple common sense.
We do not need "clarification ".

5 August 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Jobtwenteewun1to3
Thank you for your kind encouragement, I might well apply to the estimable Ms Dorries, I'm sure I could enhance her enjoyment of life.
Your experience of market town weekend drinking is replicated up and down the length of the land, I assure you.
The liberal elite in charge appear oblivious to it, or they don't want to mention the tragic waste of our nation's youth in debauchery. Mind you, I'm not one to eschew a bit of debauchery, but the moral and spiritual emptiness that accompanies it is a tragedy of epic proportions (I do not exaggerate). Something terrible is happening to us and yet complacency rules (Mr non mouse take note).
Together with all the other things that I wrote about above, this mass self-destruction by the nation's youth is a disturbing thing - and only seems to happen in Britain.
What is the cause?
I venture to suggest that it is because they see no point in behaving otherwise because there are no opportunities for them to behave differently. They have been conveniently infantilised because we really have no use for another generation while the most selfish generation that has ever existed in the history of the world retains its hold on power, money, property and opportunity.

5 August 2009 at 23:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Might I suggest some of you go and spend some time in the local Residential Care Home or Nursing Home where you will be appalled at the increasing numbers of very elderly folk in the sate I have mentioned above. We are living longer but for what when we get to the stage that we no longer know what we are or are not enjoying!

And to be kept alive when someone wants to go I think is positively cruel! It is also very depressing for other members of the family who have to see their relative in such a debilitating position. To keep someone alive at all costs is wrong I think.

It should be up to the individual to decide and act by putting this in writing call it stage 1, Stage 2 should be the agreement of the Dr, a friend, a family member and an added safeguard could be a second opinion of another Dr. that the person has reached the stage they have stipulated in their step one.

The situation should be legal and clarified.

5 August 2009 at 23:14  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Don't know what law school you went to. A crime requires two basic things:

Actus reus (Criminal Act)
Mens Rea (Criminal Intent)

You can plant a bomb and go home to bed and not be in the proximity when it pops.

5 August 2009 at 23:16  
Blogger Jobtwenteewun1to3 said...

Mr Walling, I extend my very best wishes for your application.

Unfortunately I suspect you are quite correct about the weekend experiences of many a market town the length and breadth of this country. There is something so utterly destructive about it all. It is as you say as though many see no point in behaving in a manner that retains any sense of decorum or with regards to other people. And it is not just the ‘yoof of today’ either. Age seems to be no barrier to self annihilation.

We often hear warnings about a future based upon Orwell’s 1984 and I have no doubt that ‘Big Brother’ is indeed watching [even as the majority mindlessly watch the TV show of the same name]. I am though, considerably more terrified by the prospect of his contemporary, Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’. A world where people medicate themselves into bliss, voluntarily sacrificing their rights and exchanging their liberty for superficial entertainment, cheap ‘cooking’ lager and bad hangovers....

I think I need my soma.........................

5 August 2009 at 23:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The law is quite specific in that it says it is a crime to assist anyone to commit suicide. If you want to add a clause in there for exceptional circumstances then it will have to be made clear what these circumstances are. There will have to be clear lines drawn. If one exception is going to be severe and chronic terminal illness, then there has to be a clear understanding about what stage it will be deemed acceptable to assist in the death.

This of course will send out a message to people who are in the early stages of such an illness that they will reach a stage when they could quite possibly be extinguished without their consent. I can only imagine that being told you have a terminal illness is bad enough, but to include this degrading valuation on top is unacceptable.

If you wish to kill your self then do it, but do not drag others into the dastardly deed. I can only imagine that the reason why people want others to it is because they wish to cling to every last possible day of life. Nobody should be allowed to set a limit to the worthiness of life.

Having said all of this - war just makes a mockery out of it all. Innocent causalities of war, whether they be little babies, or whoever, is somehow perversely justifiable. So at the end of the day it seems to be a load of subjective and arbitrary nonsense formulated to ease the conscience of the day. Such pathetic, malleable and capricious creatures we are. We are like dogs chasing our tails round and round in silly daft circles.

5 August 2009 at 23:57  
Anonymous Anil said...

Due to the ability to go abroad and commit euthanasia, the passing of the law and the signing of the petition appear to be of little merit (mainly ways of monitoring the convenience of euthanasia).

Therefore I feel the specific argument pertaining to this blog post seems to be regarding the fundamental concerns about euthanasia. I may not see our bodies as a ‘gift’, but if I were to, then they are undoubtedly ours, to use as we will. A man is entitled to his opinion on the sacredness of life, just as he is equally entitled to his opinion on the dignity of death.

I look to 'The Quack' and their comment on the craziness of trying to save someone's life; while at the same time someone ends theirs. This is the result of our ability to think and differ in opinion. The man mangled by a bus may be young and full of potential, but the man in the suicide ceremony is most likely a man who has approached old age and has felt a decline in his skills and faculties. Death must be recognised in the same light as life; an integral part of the ‘created order’.

Perhaps there is no specific age at which a person is 'supposed' to die, but there are undoubtedly stages where people feel ready to die. This law is therefore not regarding attempted suicide, where an over-emotional teenager/adult may be charged. This law is regarding assisted suicide, suggesting a person who is at a stage where they are unable to commit suicide on their own.

Euthanasia is a right to life, and should a person want it, the option should be there. Just as the option is there should they wish to be saved from death.

Just to summarise by going back to the passing of the law, I am hopeful that when ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ said life ‘is the gift of God’ he meant that it is our own individual gift… not parliament’s.

6 August 2009 at 00:12  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Rex v. Bourne established the grounds under which abortion might legally be performed .

Can't the pro-euthanasia enthusiasts submit their claims to similar legal tests , without seeking to impose premature death upon the elderly and disabled ?

6 August 2009 at 01:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie - I'm pretty sure you can arrange it with the right lawyer.

My own plan is never to go near any of their hospitals or nursing homes - ever.

Nor do I want any busybody neighbours 'doing their Christian duty' to help me; or the Social Services - who are a bit strange, from what I've seen. Not one of them is to be trusted.

I've seen what they all do to other people, and I don't want any of them near me.

6 August 2009 at 02:16  
Anonymous len said...

By Gods estimation most of our country is already dead!
What it needs is the Gospel of Life, the Gospel of Jesus Christ,to inject LIFE into a dying culture.
Most people sleepwalk through life and then slip silently into oblivion.
The Gospel of Hope needs to be preached with fire and passion.!

6 August 2009 at 08:20  
Anonymous nightingale said...

I can understand you point of view
02:16 Anonymous.The aged and dying are expendable in this society as reflected in the conditions of
nursing homes.Dying in comfort and dignity is something that no-one's fussed about and besides there is always a long waiting list for beds.If a society is judged by the way it treats animals then surely this should extend to the aged and dying in terms of more funding for NHS in this area.

6 August 2009 at 08:25  
Anonymous Janice said...

Marie1797 wrote,

I would want someone to get the Smith and Weston out and put an end to it for me. I would not wish them to feel guilty as they would be doing me a great favour.

But you wouldn't be doing them a favour. Indeed, you'd probably be doing them great psychological harm. Unless, of course, the person doing the job was another Harold Shipman. He seems to have enjoyed the killing business.

But then, I don't suppose many people would like the idea of being killed by someone who gets off on that sort of thing. It would tend to ruin the warmy-feelingness of the occasion to have the deed done by someone who's watching intently to see the light go out of your eyes and hovering over you to catch your last breath.

I completely agree with the comment by Anonymous who, at 23:57 wrote,

If you wish to kill your self then do it, but do not drag others into the dastardly deed.

So if you have a fit body but think you're starting to go gaga, then go off by yourself and just walk into the ocean, or jump off a cliff, or swallow poison, or do whatever you can do that doesn't involve anyone else. Don't be so selfish as to expect others to do for you what you wouldn't do for yourself while you were still able.

6 August 2009 at 10:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

I feel that there is a side to this posting that many have not considered. On the one hand there is the pro/con debate but has anyone thought about the position of the unsaved, it's alright to take the spiritualist or atheist view, I'll just slip away into a new world, where I'll meet all my old friends & live happily ever after" or "When you're dead, you're dead" but all you Christians out there are surely forgetting what the Bible teaches about judgement that follows this life, Heaven or Hell? Where will Mum or Dad go after I've 'helped' them to end their temporary suffering here. I think it's about time that many of us woke up & smelt the coffee, as General Booth said "given the chance I'd hold my soldiers over Hell for fifteen minutes then they'd never stop preaching the gospel" have so many of us forgotten why Jesus came? I think a little revision is needed here class.

6 August 2009 at 11:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Janice 23:57
I think you are being selfish thinking of your own guilt rather than the relief from pain and suffering you would be giving the other person.

Of course there would be no need for someone to go off and kill themselves at the early onset stage when they were still lucid. But when they reached the non compos mentis stage and you were following the steps of their written wishes giving them a dose of medicine or taking them to a Dr who could do this would be helping them die with dignity and relieving their suffering.
We wouldn’t let the horse or the dog or any animal suffer why a human being?

Life is a precious gift and should be savoured and lived to the full with due regard and consideration for others.

6 August 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous Theo said...

Preacher you've overlooked the fact that being an accomplice to suffering is a sin and deserving of hell and its torments.Or are you saying that God is perverted?

6 August 2009 at 16:49  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Marie - wherever you stand professionally or personally in this debate is your business and not ours; however I wouldn't want you advising me or mine in the choice. I can't even wrap my head about what you must define as "dying with dignity."

I have given care and helped to relieve suffering for those I loved; but I would not and could not kill them, nor have I done so.

In the circumstances you describe, I consider caring for family to be a God-given duty - and a privilege.

You say life is a gift - I don't know who you think gave it; but I do know something deep inside my nature says that to take it away would be momentously horrendous. Unconscionable. I believe God alone has that right; and He won't let us suffer any more than we can bear. Furthermore, He has given us means to alleviate pain. And don't tell me I don't know what pain is because I, and my doctors, can assure you that I do.

As for euthanizing animals - that's not much better; though I understand that necessity dictates cases. I couldn't have given the injection to my dog, though, and may never get over agreeing to it. She wouldn't have let anyone do that to me!!!

Various impedimenta prevented my nursing her through the end. What struck me in her case though, was the extent to which life had informed the beauty and character of her frame. Once she had left it....

7 August 2009 at 00:09  
Anonymous Mike Goggin said...

I have my doubts about these Number 10 petitions - more bs from Brown I think. However, I've signed up.

7 August 2009 at 08:30  
Blogger Preacher said...

Theo.
Unfortunately suffering exists in this World, always has, always will since humanity fell & allowed that chief purveyor of suffering, (Satan) to rule. You are drawing conclusions from my post that were not made, if you say that "in your opinion" allowing suffering is a sin deserving of Hell then that is your full entitlement.
God became man & suffered terribly on the cross so that We would not have to endure eternal pain & loss, that was the whole point of the incarnation. To terminate someones existence without thought of their eternal destination is in my opinion short sighted to the point of criminallity. Alleviate pain by all means, but how would you feel to have assisted a loved one to spend eternity in darkness & suffering? ignorance is no plea in law.

7 August 2009 at 10:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To non mouse 00:09

My how I can feel the fear in your comment! People are afraid to agree to assisted suicide being legalised in case they start getting their families bumped off with any short stay in hospital, well it wouldn’t work like that.

I stand for the changing and clarification of the law in favour of assisted suicide and I can’t remember offering my services to anyone on here.

You talk the talk but can you walk the walk?
You obviously have not had to care for anyone with mid to late stage dementia?
This goes on for many years until one is too exhausted to cope so they end up propped up with fifty odd other brain dead individuals in a care home being kept alive. What for? It is very distressing for the family to see them like this too.

That short time we have on earth with all our faculties to be able to take part is precious. When you are a vegetable or have a disease like motor neurone or are in agony with terminal cancer, being kept alive to suffer is wrong. Jesus suffered and died to that we might not. Three score years and ten is what the Bible says, but man has enabled himself to live longer but for what when most of the extra years are spent suffering or in a vegetative state. It is more dignified to ease the person on to the next plane if they wish it than to see them struggle. There is no proof that we or the person who we help go will end up in heaven or hell.

7 August 2009 at 13:16  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Marie - you're not quite as perceptive as you think you are! That's definitely not fear you sense!

"People are afraid to agree to assisted suicide being legalised in case they start getting their families bumped off with any short stay in hospital, well it wouldn’t work like that." ... You have more faith in human nature than I have! Especially since I know it's happening anyway - making it legal isn't going to make a jot of difference.

"I can’t remember offering my services to anyone on here." I never said you did - only that I wouldn't want you 'helping' anyone I care about... regardless.

"You talk the talk but can you walk the walk?" Though I'd made it clear - been there, done that. I pointed out that I don't believe in gratuitous life support.

We have painkillers - and they work for terminal cancer patients so long as no one dosed them on the stuff too early. And believe me, I've seen plenty of neurological patients in my time.

We're never going to agree on this, Marie. Chalk and cheese, you know? You and your kind don't mind killing people. My kind and I don't want anything to do with it; believe in the 10 commandments and conscience; and know that we answer to a higher power.

So let's call it a day... I have other things to do.

7 August 2009 at 17:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Ok, agree to disagree.

Well the world would be a much less interesting a place if we all held the same views and opinions.

Marie

7 August 2009 at 17:52  
Anonymous Miriam said...

What about a situation such as in the Polish ghetto during ww2 when
the merciful doctors overdosed the seriously ill patients before the
Nazis came in to exterminate.Are
these doctors in hell with the patients who were begging to die?
What kind of monsters are you people?

7 August 2009 at 17:53  
Anonymous PaganPride said...

I do not subscribe to your Christian morality - I have found little morality in Christians so far.

So why do you think that you have right to dictate to others that do not share your so called ethics (I say 'so-called' because if God the father is the same Jehovah that visited death and destruction on a number of peoples and nations he didn't like or agree with .... Oh! NOW I know where those ethics come from)- forget I spoke: it has all become crystal clear.)

Hypocrisy - thy name is .....Christian. (to totally misquote Bunyan)

11 August 2009 at 07:10  
Anonymous len said...

Yes, there are hypocrites among those who claim to be followers of Christ. There are
hypocrites in many congregations; sometimes they are found out, other times they are not.
Their hypocrisy, however, should not deter us from serving God faithfully. Our reward depends
upon our own personal faithfulness to Jesus; God will take care of the actors and hypocrites in
his righteous judgment. Don’t miss heaven because of hypocrites.

11 August 2009 at 19:59  
Anonymous Athansius said...

I also believe that only God can see into the heart .All that is good in a man is a reflection of
God and that that is not is base
...a condition of humanity which
is flawed and evil and that has caused almost all of the suffering here on earth coupled with mediaeval religion imposed on the ignorant and vulnerable by its inquisitors who use fear and punishment of hell as methods of control.

12 August 2009 at 09:04  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The good old christian right yet again pushing their views and "morals" on to those who do not subscribe to their fictional faith based sky fairy.

Go on folks, bet you are proud of yourselves yet again, I mean why should anyone have the right to choose what to do with their own lives when we have you lot to tell us.

13 August 2009 at 14:22  
Anonymous len said...

The Case for Christianity and the Moral Law.( C S Lewis)
Lewis spends most of his defense of the Christian faith on an argument from morality, a point which persuaded him from atheism to Christianity. He bases his case on a moral law, a "rule about right and wrong" commonly known to all human beings. On a more mundane level, it is generally accepted that stealing is violating the moral law. Lewis argues that the moral law is like the laws of nature in that it was not contrived by humans. However, it is unlike natural laws in that it can be broken or ignored, and it is known intuitively, rather than through observation. After introducing the moral law, Lewis argues that there must be "something behind" it; namely, God.

15 August 2009 at 00:54  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Lewis can argue that all he wants the fact remains to jump from your analysis to the hypothesis of a god is one giant leap of faith with no basis in emperical evidence.

In other words if he decides that it must be god then a equally valid counter hypothesis that the moral framework is given to us from a telepathic space potato injecting it's starchy ideas directly into our brains is just as likely.

17 August 2009 at 13:20  
Anonymous len said...

The Glovner,
If there is no God, then why is it wrong to murder and steal? Even if you don't want to murder and steal, on what grounds can you criticize someone who does, since morals must be completely relative and arbitrary to an atheist? Without God there is no criterion for deciding what is good and evil beyond the whim of the individual. In other words, without God there is no way to answer the question, "Why is x wrong?" As a believer in the one true God, I know why, and I know why in absolute terms.

20 August 2009 at 20:06  
Anonymous len said...

Lord Devlin said some years ago, "No society has yet solved the problem of how to teach morality without religion." It has always seemed rather ridiculous to me for people to think that you can still have "morality", particularly Christian morality, without God. C. S. Lewis said:

If no set of moral ideas were better than another, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to Nazi morality. The moment you say one lot of morals is better than another, you are in fact measuring them by an ultimate standard.

And the moment you admit that there must be some ultimate standard, you are arguing for the existence of God.

21 August 2009 at 17:39  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
Without Gods moral law as a foundation of good and evil what or who would you base your morals on?
This is exactly the predicament that fallen man finds himself in.

30 August 2009 at 18:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"If there is no God, then why is it wrong to murder and steal?"

Because all organisims are predisposed towards furthering their existence. If everyone was to lie, murder and steal it would not benefit the organisim and it would eventually destroy itself. Self-preservation in other words, not murdering and pissing over other members of your species is a good way to preserve the species.

"Even if you don't want to murder and steal, on what grounds can you criticize someone who does"

Once again, because a complete lack of social morals does not benefit the species and other people suffer when they have a right not to.

"since morals must be completely relative and arbitrary to an atheist?"

Yes, I suppose they are relative to a degree, murdering someone is disagreable, but if commiting that murder would benefit the species (i.e if someone like Hitler was killed before he really got started) then I suppose it would be forgiveable by an atheists standard (like myself) but this is an argument about the hypothetical and not really worth continuing since you will argue it based on your unprovable wisdom bestowed on you by god, and I would prefer to try to use logic.

"Without God there is no criterion for deciding what is good and evil beyond the whim of the individual."

Disagree, you can deicide good and evil based on the actions effect.

"In other words, without God there is no way to answer the question, "Why is x wrong?""

I disagree in the same way with this statement as I do all your other points.

"As a believer in the one true God, I know why, and I know why in absolute terms."

As a believer in your version of your imaginary friend that nobody else can see or hear then you are incapable of lending any weight to your position. Your opinions based on your personal take on your religion have no more authority than anyone else who make decisions based on an imaginary friend. And that is why when you state that you are right and anyone else who disagrees with you is wrong then you portray yourself as arrogant.

3 September 2009 at 13:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older