Wednesday, January 04, 2012

What about Dignity in Living?

It is absolutely outrageous that only the wealthy terminally ill or disabled have the option of jetting out to Dignitas in Switzerland to seek assistance in ending their lives: the poor have to stay in the UK and suffer like dogs (actually, we treat dogs better). And so Lord Falconer convened an ‘independent commission’ to consider the case for legalising ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia). Dr Peter Saunders has blown the whole ‘independent’ claim out of the water. It was financed by the pro-euthanasia lobby, and composed predominantly of those whose pro-euthanasia proclivities precede their medical or ethical expertise: they are all appointees of Lord Falconer himself.

So it comes as something of a shock to learn that they have rejected Lord Falconer’s recommendations on ‘assisted dying’ and have opted to protect the elderly, sick and vulnerable.

O, sorry, got that bit wrong.

The conclusion of this ‘independent commission’ is that ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia) should be legalised in this country, if only to mitigate the inconvenience of having to jet off to Dignitas, and to address the gross injustice that the poor are discriminated against.

So, you hand-pick a dozen people who think as you think on a matter, and then publish their findings as reasoned and independent intelligence. Palliative care is dismissed as ‘patchy’, and improvements in hospices would not be sufficient for everyone: there would still be some who wanted to die at the time of their choosing ‘rather than face a period of reduced function and independence in their final illness’.

Lord Falconer’s proposals (and, coincidentally, those of his independent commission) include protection for the friends and families of the ill: they should not face prosecution when they help someone to commit suicide, and neither should doctors. Disabled people will be protected from feeling pressurised into taking their lives by ensuring that they must seek the opinion of two independent doctors to certify their mental capacity.

It’s ironic – is it not – that as Parliament dispenses with the very statutory safeguard designed to limit the number of abortions, it is deemed sufficient to protect the disabled. We have seen this before: it does not work. It will always be possible to find two independent doctors to grant one’s wishes, especially if those doctors are as independent as Lord Falconer’s commission. And when, a generation from now, it is deemed to be a hurdle to compassion, it will be done away with. And where ‘assisted suicide’ is impossible for some disabled (simply because they are physically incapable of ‘pressing a button’), we will, as sure as night follows day, see the incremental introduction of state-sanctioned euthanasia, in order that a third party may legally kill the terminally ill or disabled. And from there, why not terminate those who are mentally disabled and incapable of assessing their own ‘quality of life’? Why should autonomy trump compassion?

The report – due to be published tomorrow (but ‘leaked’ by Lord Falconer to The Telegraph) – is designed to pressure Parliament into considering the case for legalising ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia) in order to make people’s ‘last days on earth are bearable’. The problem is that such a Bill would implicitly determine that some lives are simply not worth living: some existences are ‘second class’.

This is not an easy subject; indeed, it is fraught with complexities. The Christian is commanded to love, show compassion, and to weep with those who weep. It is impossible not to be profoundly moved by the testimonies of people who have watched their spouses, parents or children suffer and die. When you add a few celebrities like Sir Terry Pratchett, who has early-onset dementia, and Sir Cliff Richard, whose mother died of the same disease, the campaign for reform gains momentum. And so leading think-tanks and the BBC inculcate the mantra ‘Dignity in Dying’.

When nine out of 12 members of the commission are known supporters of ‘assisted suicide’ (if not euthanasia), and those who take a contrary view are denied a hearing, it is unsurprising that many individuals and organisations (including the BMA) refused to give evidence. The outcome was predetermined, and one must hope that Parliament sees through this façade of an inquiry. The current law exists to protect the vulnerable, elderly and disabled from being or feeling pressured to end their lives because they are either a financial or care burden. It is hard to see how the requirement for two doctors to certify a person’s mental capacity will offer adequate protection against the feeling of being a burden on one’s family, especially when unscrupulous members of that family have a financial interest in the death.

Presently, only about 20-25 people jet out to Switzerland each year to end their lives. It is estimated that the legalisation of ‘assisted suicide’ and euthanasia would lead to 13000 deaths annually. The most vulnerable elderly and disabled would inevitably feel they were a burden on their families and society, and the terminally ill may view the option as preferable to months or years of treatment and palliative care. God alone knows how many teenagers might choose to end their lives over depression, family breakdown or unrequited love.

God said: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life...” (Deut 30:19). The only response to the 'Dignity in Dying' agenda of despair is for us to talk endlessly about Dignity in Living and the hope it engenders. Suffering is never easy, but it is inseparable from the sentient life. There is more to be gained from carrying one's cross than than avoiding it, though the desire is innate. But the passion of Christ is the fundamental paradigm for life: suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

As we await Lord Falconer's full report, we can be sure of one thing: it will be hope-less.

129 Comments:

Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Outrageous! As Christians we are called to 'pick up our crosses' daily and join our suffering with Christ's. We are also told we are made in the image of God and that we should not take life. Yet again the atheist, god forsaken opinion formers in our country attempt to take another step towards dismantling our Christian hereitage. In Scotland this legislation was thrown out. Let's pray it meets the same fate here.

4 January 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger IanVisits said...

The problem is that such a Bill would implicitly determine that some lives are simply not worth living: some existences are ‘second class’.

As someone who is likely to face a rather protracted illness and lingering death (unless I am hit by a car), I can assure you that some lives are indeed inferior to others.

Being stuck in bed with needles stuck in you and nurses constantly checking that you are still clinging onto life is unquestionably inferior to going out for a nice walk and doing what I want when I want.

I have already taken the decision that - funding permitted - I will take the option to end my life when it becomes unbearable.

At the moment, I have a choice, I can leave while still fit enough to get to Switzerland, or I can hang around a bit longer, but with ever increasing risks that I will wake up one day and be too ill to make the trip.

If I am stuck in the UK, the State will then force me to linger on in ever increasing levels of discomfort and decreasing levels of dignity until medical science eventually fails to hold my shattered carcass together and I finally die.

I don't want to die. I want to live as long as I can do so in moderate dignity.

The current system actually kills me sooner than necessary - simply because I have to die at a time when I am still fit and modestly healthy to take a trip to Switzerland.

Changing the law will let some of us wait a bit longer - maybe a few weeks, maybe a few months - before taking the final option.

Yes, some people will be pressured into death, but that already happens and there are a lot of people who "die in their sleep", who most certainly were assisted to do so. The law on murder covers those cases, so there is no need to worry that assisted suicide would change that.

Letting people choose when to die will mean more people living for longer, and when they die, they can do so at home, surrounded by comforts and not in an impersonal Swiss industrial estate.

Why is that a bad thing?

4 January 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

"You matter because you are you.
You matter to the last moment of your life,and we will do all we can,
not only to help you die peacefully,
but also to live until you die."
Dame Cicely Saunders

4 January 2012 at 11:07  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

Buddhism too.

"This Noble truth of suffering is to be understood".

4 January 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Ianvisits.

So much more relevant than Bible references and waffle about "Christian heritage".

4 January 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ian Visits said ...
" ... doing what I want when I want ..."

Jesus said ...
"Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine."

That's the essential Christian position. Yet even without faith in Christ it is hard to see how to defend a change in law permitted ethenasia - or 'assisted' homicide. Sufficient safeguards cannot be built into legislation to avoid the potential hazards and outlined in the article. It devalues life rather than dignifies it.

Given the present (non)implementation of the law, i.e. turning a blind eye to assisted homicide, individuals and their loved ones can do pretty much as they choose anyway.

The Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines 'permit' such acts when motivated "wholly by compassion". Of the 31 cases of assisted suicide that have come before the DPP since he introduced the guidelines two years ago, not one has resulted in a prosecution.

Jesus when faced with St Peter's plea that He avoid His fate responded:

"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

4 January 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger Oswin said...

Nice one Dodo, I'm sure Ian feels all the better for that!

4 January 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger Michael Wenham said...

I wait in the morning for my carer to arrive and dress me. I wait in the evening for my daughter to undress me and get me in to bed. From toileting, and showering , to feeding and moving I am dependent. I have PLS, a type of MND. I don't want to die. Maybe I shall.

But my autonomy, my "right to choose", is not sufficient to remove the law's protection from those whom it now protects. We don't have the right to make our own laws. The preservation of life is a fundamental principle of English law. His Grace is right to resist any erosion of that foundation.

When I reach the terminal point of my life, I don't intend to ask my doctor to break her code of preserving life. I trust she will relieve the pain and the unpleasant symptoms, and let me go when I die. Meanwhile all life HAS dignity. There's not inferior or superior, just different. In the summer we'll see the Paralympics. Disabled athletes aren't lesser athletes; they don't have lesser lives.

4 January 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

...the passion of Christ is the fundamental paradigm for life: suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

Utterly dispassionate, inhuman and arbitery tosh - and Christians wonder why they have lost so many bums on seats.

This is the logic of the Flat Earthers writ large. Keep your primitive passions for suffering for your selves and your selves alone.

4 January 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Before abortion was made legal, there were several cases where the doctor had to show that it was necessary to save the mother's life. Where it was deemed necessary, the doctor was acquitted. The issue with legalising abortion was not the freedom to have the procedure, but the shift in presumption. With abortion illegal, it was up to the doctor to prove his case. Now it is legal, the presumption is that he was justified in any circumstance.

If we legalise 'assisted suicide' (a ridiculous oxymoron) then the presumption will become that the euthanasia was voluntary. No one would actually check the paperwork unless relatives became suspicious. One can argue ad infinitum about safeguards, but we have learned with abortion that they don't work. The failure of safeguards is always a concern when selectively taking people's lives. It's the reason we don't have capital punishment. If one legalises euthanasia then logically one should legalise capital punishment, as the safeguards for the former are far weaker.

Ian, you fear pain. Everyone does. Even Jesus (and by extension God) feared pain. What you have to understand (like Jesus did) is that if you avoid that pain, you put others in danger. This was clear to Jesus, but less obvious to you because the danger is less obvious.

Besides, dying painfully is never necessary; we have the greatest palliative care system in the world. God invented morphine for a reason, and when Mr. Alder Wright and Mr. Hoffman decided that adding a couple of acetyl groups might be worth a try they discovered a drug that virtually eliminates pain. In fact there are even some newer more potent goodies on the market to allow you to die in the drug induced stupor that we all hope for.

tl;dr Don't worry about dying in pain, the doctors will fill you up to the eyeballs with heroin.

4 January 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Oswin said...
"Nice one Dodo, I'm sure Ian feels all the better for that!"

How patronising and disrespectful of you! Why not direct your comment to Ian and offer a view?

It's easy sitting on the side lines criticising others. He's a grown up, articulate person quite capable of speaking his mind and presenting a point of view and hearing another person's opinion. It's preferable to say what I believe to be true rather than some dishonest drivvel intended to make him feel better.

4 January 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Dreadnaught,

Whilst I remain to be persuaded over the reason for suffering, I'm sure one gains a great comfort upon deciding that pain has no purpose and is completely unnecessary. I'm sure the last thing that someone who suffers wants to hear is that something good may come of it.

4 January 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Jon said...

I really to and fro on this, and don't wish to be insensitive, but I don't think that the best arguments against the legalisation of assisted suicide are religious - after all, why should one choose to be bound by the restrictions of anothers' religion in one's own home or where one's own life and death are concerned?

The slippery slope argument is more persuasive in my view, given the nature of some relatives (or should I say beneficiaries) in these circumstances - but I'm not sure it's enough. What abortion safeguards have been over-ridden in your view Lakester? Your assertion rather hinges on this, but you don't reference them and it would be helpful if you could.

Also - I don't know necessarily that this is about avoidance of pain. I think that's part of it, but surely it's about saying goodbye to your relatives at a time of your choosing and with as much dignity as possible. A drug induced stupor isn't dignified in my experience!

Of course, many people don't get this chance, as they die suddenly. Presumably for you religious types this is all part of God's plan. But the Bible doesn't reference degenerative disease because it didn't exist in Jesus' time. The relevance of the verses you quote on the death of Jesus, which took a matter of days, not years, is therefore questionnable. Your God clearly feared pain enough to choose to have his son die brutally, but relatively quickly, rather than of alzheimer's or some other degenerative disease with "the best palliative care in the world"? If a relatively quick death surrounded by his loved ones was good enough for Jesus, why would you deny it to anyone else?

Also, and not entirely incidentally, if Jesus could have saved himself, why was his death not suicide?

4 January 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sign up for Christianity and embrace your own physical suffering - that's what it's all about. This is why 'Mother Teresa' allowed thousands to die in pain and squalor while sending millions of dollars to the Vatican Fat Cats.

Thanks but - No Thanks.

4 January 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger DP111 said...

One of the principle arguments against capital punishment is that an innocent person could be executed. Wouldn't the same argument apply to ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia)?

4 January 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"In my own country, some are proposing what is called Euthanasia; at present only a proposal for killing those who are a nuisance to themselves; but soon to be applied progressively to those who are a nuisance to other people"

GK Chesterton


That was written in the 1930s; I don't think there was anything Chesterton didn't see coming; talk about a prohpet not being honoured...

4 January 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger Berserker said...

What is this obsession with dignity? When my turn comes and even if I am in terrible pain and kicking and screaming, the last thing I shall worry or care about is the bourgeois concept of dignity!

Severe illness (and I have had my fair share of these little buggers in my life) frees one from the tyranny of the self.

The future is the worst thing about the present.
(Flaubert)

4 January 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jon said ...

" ... if Jesus could have saved himself, why was his death not suicide?"

Thank God the country doesn't depend on your type of 'courage', or is it 'nobility' of mind? We certainly wouldn't want you to fall into enemy hands bearing a secret upon which the lives of others depended. Aferall suffering or risking one's life for others amounts to potential suicide.

4 January 2012 at 15:37  
Blogger Jon said...

No, but Dodo, Jesus didn't risk his life. You believe that he actually deliberately died, at a time and place of his own choosing. Even if he knew he was going to rise again, he actually died. So please explain, rather than insult, as to how this is different? I'm genuinely interested.

And since you believe it is the will of God that some of us should have drawn out deaths accompanied by varying degrees of either personal distress or distress to our families, you should explain why Jesus didn't die today of motor neurone disease or some other degenerative illness, instead of relatively quickly (but in unimaginable pain) a couple of thousand years ago. And since there's nothing in the Bible about degenerative illness, how you presume to lecture those who have one on what they should do?

My point is that I recoil in horror at the thought of someone being "euthanised" against their will, but I find your arguments to defeat the idea self- serving and riddled with inconsistency. Surely it's possible to do better?

4 January 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger orangegoblin82 said...

This article causes one wish to surface again in my life.

I do with that christians would stay out of other people's private lives in this country.

It never ends, telling completely uninterested people when they should have sex, with whom, who they should marry, how they should die and when.

If someone comes to your for advise on one of these issues please feel free to give a full opinion.

Otherwise how about you mind your own business? I thought that was what conservatism was about? Freedom?

4 January 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jon

The analogy I used should suffice. Is a soldier who is captured and promised liberty if he answers or torture and death if he refuses, committing suicide? Of course not. He's putting self above others. He's serving a higher principle.

Jesus knew the time, place and circumstances of His death because He was both man and God. He surrendered Himself as an act of love which is different to your suggestion.

I find this comment unworthy of a reply:

"Your God clearly feared pain enough to choose to have his son die brutally, but relatively quickly, rather than of alzheimer's or some other degenerative disease with "the best palliative care in the world"? If a relatively quick death surrounded by his loved ones was good enough for Jesus, why would you deny it to anyone else?"

This is equally contemptible.

" ... since you believe it is the will of God that some of us should have drawn out deaths accompanied by varying degrees of either personal distress or distress to our families, you should explain why Jesus didn't die today of motor neurone disease or some other degenerative illness, instead of relatively quickly (but in unimaginable pain) a couple of thousand years ago."

I don't know the answers and suggest when you meet Christ you ask Him. Thereafter, you'll have eternity to reflect on His answers to both your questions.

4 January 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "Before abortion was made legal, there were several cases where the doctor had to show that it was necessary to save the mother's life."

Strictly speaking, it isn't legal. The law provides a defence if certain conditions are met and it is performed by certain people.

4 January 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is a soldier who is captured and promised liberty if he answers or torture and death if he refuses, committing suicide?"

It is if the soldier can refuse to answer and walk away anyway. He's just using other people to kill himself. I'd have just permanently hung on the cross refusing to let my body die if I was feeling contrary that day. We're talking something that was apparently 100% lord, creator, and sustainer of the whole universe as well as 100% man here, capable of miracles at the drop of a hat or a wave of a hand.

4 January 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - you can't reply because you don't know the answers, not because you don't think they're worthy questions. You've chosen to ignore them, and that's why you have faith. It's fine, and you should feel free to say so. But don't write them off as questions just because you can't answer them.

As for your analogy - the soldier couldn't have reasonably asked his father to not only make the dilemma disappear, but also the people proposing to torture him. Your analogy doesn't hold I'm afraid, mon brave.

As it is - we have the emotive appeal on one side of someone asking to be allowed to spend time at home before ending their life at a time of their own choosing, as against an equally valid other who rejects this as a false choice, backed by those who suggest that it's a slippery slope.

It seems to me that to support either could be humane, I'm unsure. But my point is, that I find the arguments and appeals to your faith singularly unpersuasive when a God who subjected himself to the human frailties of a time of his own all- knowing election, has also apparently planned for the frailties of others to be perpetuated by modern medicine, and for his adherents to insist that we go on doing so. How can this be just or loving?

4 January 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo. It's good to able to fall back on indignation when you have no answers, I guess.

4 January 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. This is one area where Christianity should not be pushed onto individuals who do not wish to be contained by its strictures. It is clear that to protect the terminally or hopelessly ill, the state must make provision to protect their interests. The individual should be, on the recommendation of their GP and their own agreement, taken under the care of a Panel of Attorney.

Too many cases around of the younger members of a family wanting an older one dead before care costs reduce their estate to almost nothing. Seen it personally, a dominant husband itching to get his hands on his widowed mother-in-laws wealth, “before the ‘Numbered Days’ Elderly Care Home takes the lot”. Can easily believe 13000 cases from that alone !

With a Panel of Attorney in place, what happens next ? IanVisits is the man to ask. Do give us more of your thoughts Sir.

4 January 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jon

As it is written "No greater love has any man than this - that a man lay down his life for his friends." Does the soldier who falls on a grenade commit suicide? I suppose he does in a sense. He has willfully valued the lives of his friends above the his own. In the case of Jesus, He came specifically to lay down His life. No one took it from Him. He laid it down so that others might live. Suicide as commonly known is an act of autonomous rebellion. It originates in a desire to control one's own death according to time and place. It is an act of the self intended to serve the interests of the self. Therein lies the difference.

It also illustrates why the idea of assisted suicide is so dangerous. People will be coerced into killing themselves because they have become a burden. They will be implicitly told to place others above themselves in order to facilitate the obvious desires of caregivers not to be burdened. It's the difference between "I shall fall on that grenade because I love you" and "Hey, you should fall on that grenade for us because you love us so much."

carl

4 January 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant proposes a Final Solution to the growing problem of an aging population (which is what this is all about) - a state sponsored life span. Seventy-five? Eighty? Think of a number and think of the cost savings. In this brave new world there will be no long good- bye, it will simply be a matter of bringing out the soon to be dead.

God save us from such a vision, but your communicant can see it coming.

4 January 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jon said ...
"Dodo - you can't reply because you don't know the answers, not because you don't think they're worthy questions."

Actually I did answer the substantive question about the difference between suicide and self sacrifice. Carl has too.

The other questions about 'why' are worthy but were posed disrespctfully and deserve contempt. To sneer at Christ's death and suggest it was somehow an 'easier option' to the suffering God inflicts on others, is contemptable.

As I said, I don't know why God permits such suffering.

Inspector
We are all diminished by laws which promote or permit evil.

4 January 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

" As I said, I don't know why God permits such suffering."
Christianity stands or falls by this. Haven't you even looked into it?

4 January 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Don’t really want to see other than the status quo either. Will do best to fight it.

Bluedog. Brings to mind the film Soylent Green...

4 January 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

"We are all diminished by laws which promote or permit evil."

God permits evil.

4 January 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Does the soldier who falls on a grenade commit suicide? I suppose he does in a sense."

Altruistic suicide. The buddhist monks setting fire to themselves for a cause are doing that.

The focus on the purpose is obviously a good one. My throwing myself on a grenade to save others is extreme altruism, especially as I am an atheist and I am expecting to kill my physical body and therefore me.

Of course, if I absolutely knew for sure that I was killing my physical body but not me and what it was like without a body then it might not seem such a sacrifice.

Crucifixion was a fairly common punishment at the time and there are probably worse ways to die too. Therefore, I'm not sure why such as big thing is made of JC's altruistic suicide.

4 January 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl said

'Suicide as commonly known is an act of autonomous rebellion. It originates in a desire to control one's own death according to time and place'.

A I read this -for what ever reason my mind was instantly filled with the horror images of those poor innocent people who leapt to their deaths on 9/11.

Would any Cristian, even the Chriso-Fascist DoDo, condemn their actions for some crackpot, pseudo intellectual argument?

None of your pontificating means anything until you have put yourselves in the3 same scenario where those people were.

4 January 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Aspic Tongue said...

"Christianity stands or falls by this (God permitting suffering). Haven't you even looked into it?"

Of course but the question posed was a specific one about long term degenerative conditions.

The Christian answer is free will resulting in the Fall of Man, the consequential corruption of nature and the entrance of death. The specific meaning of an individual person's death is for them to reflect on.

God permits us to exercise free will and we suffer the consequences.

4 January 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
An extremely sensitive case this.
The Inspector has got a lot right @18:59. This is one area where Christianity should not be pushed onto individuals. Yes there are numerous cases where unscrupulous relatives see their inheritance going down the proverbial bed pan. Why do we have such a large aging populous in critical health situations?. In times past, the medical care was not available to maintain a vegative life state and people died. Dying is not such a bad thing for the believer providing it comes about in natural ways but for those left in such a miserable state what can be done?
I was helping to raise funds for a Hospice near us and asked one of the staff their opinion of assisted suicide. Their preferred option is the Liverpool Care Pathway or palliative care pathway but she did say though that in some instances, assisted suicide would be kinder.
The Independent Catholic News commented that the provision of assisted suicide ‘would place emotional pressure on elderly, sick and disabled people to end their lives’ for the sake of their relatives.
I hear what people are saying about imposing our views on individuals but the truth is, if we as a nation had maintained a stronger Christian Faith, most would be of the opinion that is wrong to take ones own life.

4 January 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

For one who ike the play the moral philosopher I'm surprised you can't see the difference between an act to save another's life which as a consequence results in one's own death, and a deliberate taking of one's own life to make a political statement.

There's no valid comparison between the soldier throwing himself on a grenade and the Budhist monk setting himself on fire - or a suicide bomber, for that matter.

Mr Integrity
Do make up your mind! Sanctioning assisted homocide, whatever the safeguards or circumstances, is morally wrong and will have unacceptable consequences for us all.

4 January 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

I welcome your explanation, Dodo, of how the Japanese Tsunami was a consequence of human free will.

4 January 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "There's no valid comparison between the soldier throwing himself on a grenade and the Budhist monk setting himself on fire - or a suicide bomber, for that matter."

They're both altruistic suicide, there's the valid comparison right there. Hope that helps. Also, the buddhist may well be saving lives in the long run by doing it.

4 January 2012 at 21:27  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Twisted Tongue

Yes, that's right, at the dawn of time leading to a world of suffering. Hope you managed to understand it.

Pleased to be of assistance.

4 January 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Sanctioning assisted homocide"

Freudian slip again, Dodo?

4 January 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good points Mr Integrity. Have you noticed that as our society drifts towards atheism, its ‘save life at all costs’. There’s a lot to be said for the order of yesterday, a time to let go, when your natural time is up. A similar case can be put when the new-born are dragged back into life, only to expire a mere decade or two from there. However, that’s a thread deviation, and rather than wreck this one, perhaps the Archbishop can have it in mind to address that concern in the future...

4 January 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

Please include the premise to my conclusion.

" ... an act to save another's life which as a consequence results in one's own death, and a deliberate taking of one's own life to make a political statement."

Now do you see the significant difference? "Double effect" and all that? No Christian would condemn those poor souls who leapt to their deaths at 9/11. What a perverse thing to suggest. How can anyone know what was on their minds at the time?

And Christ's death was not altruistic suicide! He was arrested, condemned, tortured and brutally murdered by the Jewish authorities and the Romans. He passively resisted and accepted; that was the sacrifice. Get it?

4 January 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo. Did you read my comment? It was in a discussion form and considered the views of others. Something I'm not sure that you can do. It did however I felt present the view that for a Christian, suicide was wrong.

4 January 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0 said...
Dodo: "Sanctioning assisted homocide"
Freudian slip again, Dodo?


Not at all. Merely a spelling error. Don't go all sensitive me on me.

Homo - human being
Caedere - to kill.

4 January 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now do you see the significant difference?"

They're both altruistic suicide. You're arguing a different point, thinking you're arguing with me.

"He passively resisted and accepted; that was the sacrifice. Get it?"

No. He knew what was going to happen beforehand. He had the power, actually overwhelming power, to change the outcome. He chose to allow his physical body to be killed. Therefore, it was suicide. The reason for doing that makes it altruistic suicide.

Let's face it, he could have changed all the molecules of the cross to rubber and made all the people at the back laugh by wobbling around in the wind if he wanted.

Clearly, in Christian theology very important stuff happened behind the scenes to make this altruistic suicide particularly meaningful but the act itself in our reality wasn't much of a biggie at all, was it? Less so than a Christian throwing himself on a grenade and a lot less so than an atheist doing so.

4 January 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr Integrity

Stand firm in your Christian faith. There's kindness and compassion; then there's complicity with an inherently evil act. Assisting in another's suicide is homicide - murder. It's forbidden and sinful.

No room for a 'via media' approach on this one.

4 January 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But anyway, assisted suicide. All fine in theory at this end but the practice is rather more difficult to set up. It's almost certainly going to encourage some Old Dears feel obliged to shuffle off.

4 January 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo - I said explain it, not restate it.

4 January 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"He (Christ) chose to allow his physical body to be killed. Therefore, it was suicide."

Nonsense!

By that 'logic' the Jews and Romans simply assisted in a suicide. You're suggesting Christ was responsible for His own murder!

Christ was a willing victim of unjustifiable homicide, not an instigator of His death. That He had foreknowledge of the outcome is irrelevant. That He had the power to avoid His death is immaterial. If anything these points make His sacrifice all the more significant.

Is a prisoner of war who chooses to face a firing squad rather than reveal secrets commiting suicide? Is a person who accepts death rather than recant their faith commiting suicide?

4 January 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is a prisoner of war who chooses to face a firing squad rather than reveal secrets commiting suicide? Is a person who accepts death rather than recant their faith commiting suicide?"

I refer you to my previous answer about the soldier. You're crap at analogies.

4 January 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Twisted Tongues said ...

"Dodo - I said explain it (pain, suffering, evil), not restate it."

You don't expect much, do you? An explanation for the 'mystery of evil' and human suffering!

Tell you what, have a read of the First Five Books of Scripture, think about all this for a while and then ask.

4 January 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

Unlike you to resort to abuse so early. Actually, you haven't answered at all.

4 January 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Unlike you to resort to abuse so early. Actually, you haven't answered at all."

It's hardly abuse by stating the fact.

I referred you to my previous answer about the soldier but you don't seem to get it. Let me reword your questions accordingly:

Is a willing prisoner of war who chooses to face a firing squad rather than reveal secrets or simply walk away unscathed commiting suicide?

Is a person who accepts death rather than recant their faith or simply walk away unscathed commiting suicide?

The answer is yes to both. Hope that helps.

4 January 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I must say, I do find it extraordinarily shameless of atheists to use the actions of Jesus to justify their own beliefs. Didn't Jesus commit suicide by not stopping his own death? The whole sin in suicide is that it is murder, albeit murder of the self. Murder is wrong because no human being has the right to take life. God alone has that right, and Jesus, being the second person of the Trinity, is God. Do you see where I'm going with this?

4 January 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan1: "I must say, I do find it extraordinarily shameless of atheists to use the actions of Jesus to justify their own beliefs."

That's an odd thing to say. The very fact of being an atheist precludes it, doesn't it? This atheist thinks that people own their own life and have a right, the ultimate natural right I suppose, to give it up if they choose. However, this is about assisted suicide, not just suicide, and therefore social stuff comes into play.

4 January 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Sean Baggaley said...

@Dodo:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 seems rather apt.

*

Suicide is considered a sin by the Abrahamic religions, but their god invented wasps, Venus Fly Traps, murdered innocents by the thousands, and is clearly a vicious, egotistical, jealous, sadomasochistic scumbag, so quite why they feel they have any right to claim any moral or ethical high ground escapes me. At least Atheists accept responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming everything on some invisible sky-fairy.

So...

The next question is: Who has the right to end their own life at a time of their own choosing? The answer is obviously: the owner of said life. Logically, suicide should be legal. It's not as if we're an endangered species. This isn't 2000 years ago, when the entire global population of Homo Sapiens numbered mere millions.

Which merely leaves the practical issue of how to ensure only the owner of said life gets to make the decision over his or her own death.

A common complaint is that "The ill and infirm will feel pressured!" This is trivially resolved: if you're of sound mind, you will know when someone is pressuring you to commit suicide and can take appropriate measures regarding your legacy. Changing your will, for example.

Any attempt to force you to kill yourself is wrong and already covered by laws on homicide. No need to add more laws here: if someone is going to try to kill you, it's unlikely they're planning to be all nice and law-abiding about it anyway: They'll get their hands on your filthy lucre regardless of whether they bump you off with a gun or a couple of suitably bribed doctors. Murder is murder, and we already have laws against that.

Like most irreligious atheists, the only thing I consider sacred is life. However, I'm well aware that there is such as thing as quality of life.

The human body is incredibly complex and it can suffer from any of a million problems and flaws, from a lazy eye, a cleft palate, congenital blindness, all the way to degenerative neurone disorder. A "life" spent staring at a hospital ceiling, my body filled with gurgling tubes and surrounded by pinging machines, in a vegetative state is no life at all. It is an undignified, selfish, waste of valuable professionals and resources.

There is no moral or ethical requirement that demands such a superficial illusion of life be maintained when there is no possibility of the person ever recovering.

I therefore believe that a court-based approach would be viable as a safeguard: if someone has asked to be allowed to die when specific, pre-determined conditions have been met, this is their right. It is their life.

If someone wishes to challenge the request, a small tribunal or court (perhaps with a jury of six people) can be used to examine the evidence and decide whether the person who wishes to die was, indeed, of sound mind when they made their decision.

4 January 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Berserker @ 14:43
“What is this obsession with dignity? When my turn comes and even if I am in terrible pain and kicking and screaming, the last thing I shall worry or care about is the bourgeois concept of dignity!”

I think dignity here means to be more Christian and express tolerance and patience for the sick person who is clinging on to life, especially the person with Alzheimers who no longer has a voice that he/she can use to complain against the violent and cruel treatment that sometimes takes place in the quiet of the night in the nursing home.

From being put in a tiny bed so that you fall out regularly, to being hit and manhandled, medicated into a zombie or starved and dehydrated until your kidneys fail and you're taken to hospital and left in the corridor for hours with a drip if you're lucky. Yes ,you wouldn't treat your dog like some elderly people with dementia get treated. So is it any wonder that some people me included express a written wish to end their life should dementia take over or an illness become so severe they can no longer go on.

4 January 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

[My] mind was instantly filled with the horror images of those poor innocent people who leapt to their deaths on 9/11. Would any Cristian, even the Chriso-Fascist DoDo, condemn their actions for some crackpot, pseudo intellectual argument?

I certainly would not. Death in this circumstance was both imminent and inevitable. It's wasn't about choosing whether to die, but how to die. I would not fault a man for choosing a fall over being burned alive.

During the fire after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, a Guardsman notice some men trapped on the top of a burning hotel. There was no way down. There was no way off the roof. These men were dead. They just hadn't died yet. So the Guardsman ordered the soldiers under his command to shoot them. Better a quick merciful death, he thought. I can't fault his decision.

carl

4 January 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo : 13:24: I offered my view, as it pertained to you; you're a twat, end-off.

As for the subject in hand: I have nothing definite to add. I am as torn, and as confused, as anyone else. I do not know the answer Dodo; I'm C-of-E, we just muddle through somehow. We know we don't have all the answers, I leave certainty to you.

4 January 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Carl
Forgive me for taking them out of context but it seems to me the following is a justification for assisting someone's suicide:

"It's wasn't about choosing whether to die, but how to die."

"Better a quick merciful death."

Aren't you actually supporting assisted suicide?

Oswin
Of course, of course, I understand but don't get so angry with me because your shephards are failing to guide their flocks!

DanJ0
Thanks for the editorial assistance. Much appreciated.

You seem to be confusing the deliberate taking of one's own with a deliberate refusal to save ones own life.

It was in the power of Christ, the soldier and the martyr to avoid death but at the expense of something they valued higher than life. They didn't seek death, they just didn't choose self in order to avoid it.

Not quite the same morally thing as as killing oneself to avoid pain and suffering.

5 January 2012 at 00:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
There has been much talk as to whether Jesus committed suicide by dying on the cross. I find this rather distasteful. Whist he had the power to save himself, Jesus died on the cross because he was fulfilling the will of his father and could not disobey him. It was not within his nature to do wrong and so was incapable of preventing his death.

5 January 2012 at 00:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

The key component is the imminence of death. Suicide is generally assumed to occur without the threat of imminent death. That's why it's necessary. The man wants to die now, but there is nothing to cause death now. That situation is a far cry from someone who is standing in a burning room 1500 ft above the ground with no available exit but a window and a long fall. Inside two minutes you will be burned alive. What do you do?

carl

5 January 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr Integrity
Spot on, Sir! Very well said and that is why we should also obey Our Father's will as expressed in His Ten Commandments and in the life and words of Jesus.

Not only was Jesus following the will of His Father, He was God too. His dying was a self sacrifice as well as murder.

When all else fails us the Law of God, His Way, is our moral compass.

5 January 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 January 2012 at 01:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: if I can ever offer a helping hand ...?

5 January 2012 at 01:11  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Oswin

Yeah, chop off your left one and stick it in the post, please.

Don't expect me to reciprocate.

5 January 2012 at 01:18  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

carl

People leaping to their deaths during 9/11 is understandable and presumably they jumped to escape the fire not to directly kill themselves - although that was the certain outcome.

I was troubled more by your mercy killing story. Would poisoning Jesus on the Cross before He died have been morally acceptable?

5 January 2012 at 01:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You have confused a couple of issues.

1. In terms of the Cross of Christ, you are suggesting that I interfere with the Providence of God in the central most important act in human history. That could never happen. It's like suggesting "What if Pilate had decided to release the Lord Jesus instead of Barabbas? It's a pointless counter-factual.

2. In terms of a general crucifixion, you are suggesting an interference with the rightful authority of the state to execute punishment. The suffering associated with crucifixion was the point of crucifixion. I don't know if I have the right to presume to do such a thing, but frankly I have never thought about it. I can't give you a considered answer.

As a general rule, I think it right to be merciful and kill quickly those who would otherwise die in agony over an extended period. That isn't a reference to probable death sometime in the next 3 months. It's a reference to certain death in the next 30 seconds. Those circumstances are extraordinarily rare, but they do occur.

carl

5 January 2012 at 04:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Not quite the same morally thing as as killing oneself to avoid pain and suffering."

You're arguing a different point, thinking you're arguing with me. Again. I'm arguing that JC committed altruistic suicide and, peripherally, that it was less of a sacrifice in our reality than it is made out to be. Where have I argued that JC's altruistic suicide is morally the same as committing suicide or being assisted to commit suicide because one has a degenerative terminal illness? I haven't.

5 January 2012 at 05:50  
Blogger Michele said...

"Tell you what, have a read of the First Five Books of Scripture"

Is that where it states 'To everything there is a season; a time to live and a time to die'?

I am at the moment going through it carefully to see where it gives us the right to alter that 'time to die' bit, and to forcible prolong life long after death would have been happened if left alone.

I haven't found it yet but it must be there somewhere. Otherwise why quote the Bible to support your interference in other peoples' lives; and your determination to dictate behaviour to others who do not share your religions beliefs.

If you believe that assisted suicide is morally wrong for Christians, fine!! and Christians can choose accordingly. I don't personally care.

But I do care, and care most vehemently when, not being a Christian, MY options are curtailed and MY choices are being dictated to me and justified by a belief system I do not agree with.

Nor am I impressed by those who claim suffering was inflicted on the human race by a god who supposedly gave freedom of choice, only to impose punishment on those that opted to exercise it in ways not approved of by said deity!! From the outside looking in, it is not a pretty sight!

This is a discussion when your religious beliefs are only relevant to those who share them, and to impose them on those who do not is very close to tyranny.

No-one has a choice in being born, yet all throughout our lives we are taught to take responsibility for our actions; until it comes that biblical stated 'time to die' - and right there, again we have our choice taken away.

I am a pagan, and while I will work to obtain the right for me to chose the time and method of my ending, I equally accept that my choice may not be yours and I respect that.

Would that you would respect our right to make different decisions.

5 January 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo.I didn't ask you for a full explanation of the problem of evil (there is none anyway) . I asked you to explain how(the mechanism by which) man's free will causes an earthquake and the resulting tsunami that kills thousands.

5 January 2012 at 06:41  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

YG, please let me quote the introduction to your piece, with which I am in full agreement:

"It is absolutely outrageous that only the wealthy terminally ill or disabled have the option of jetting out to Dignitas in Switzerland to seek assistance in ending their lives: the poor have to stay in the UK and suffer like dogs (actually, we treat dogs better). "

We do treat dogs better; I have seen people in conditions in which if animals were kept, prosecutions would result.

But it is the issue of outrage that I want to address. If it is indeed outrageous that only the wealthy have the option of Dignitas, how to address this?

One could consider state-funded grants to fly there for the poor who wish it. Alternatively, one could consider banning all people from flying out to Switzerland to die. Or one could consider making this service locally available to all who desire it. Perhaps there are other ways of establishing equality that I haven't thought of.

But of the options I can think of, I know which one I would prefer.

5 January 2012 at 07:51  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

These marxist scum delight in twisting our language to suit thier own purposes,"assisted suicide"if it is assisted it can not be suicide,a shift of responsibility,and a dangerous one,this may well begin under the mantle of compassion,but the thrust is to make life negotiable,once adopted when do we start on the jews,queers,gypsies,or in fact any-one who does not share our political doctrine,we have been consistently lied to, mislead and mis-informed for the past fifty years,surely no-one in thier right mind would put such a weapon into the hands of such scoundrels,unfortunately they will.

5 January 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

M/s Michele @ 05.51 asks 'Is that where it states 'To everything there is a season; a time to live and a time to die'?'

Biblical or not, that's a pretty accurate statement. The more so when you consider that every living thing on earth is going to die, it's just a question of when. As human beings we occupy a uniquely privileged position. Apart from the fact that we can destroy all life on earth, we can also kill each other and animals on an idustrial scale. We eat the animals that we kill industrially but as yet, with protein relatively abundant, we are not eating our own dead.

Why is this outrageous comment relevant to the debate on what is described with hideous euphemism as 'assisted suicide'? Because we seem to be looking at the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. There is no doubt that with medical advances there now exists in the West a huge cohort of people who would never have survived, say fifty years ago. This huge and largely bed-ridden cohort is creating a significant financial and logistical burden from the state. The Falconer Report does not seem to acknowledge this reality but it should. Killing the elderly and the infirm before the cost of their care bankrupts the state is one solution to the problem. The Falconer Report potentially provides cover for the state execution of millions. And after all, if the state simply refuses to pay for the aged care of anybody over the age of say, eighty, who will? His Grace points out that currently only the rich can afford to die when they want. It is not fanciful to forecast that soon only the rich will be able to afford dementia.

Christian or not, it does not take much imagination to realise that this impending holocaust of the elderly takes man's inhumanity to man to new levels of depravity. Claims that there are exiting laws protecting against murder that apply are pathetically naive. A legal practice using what one might call Estate Champerty would be very lucrative indeed.

Your own view appears to be entirely selfish and you apparently resent the protection implicit in the Christian values still held by the majority (70%) of the population. If the will of this Christian majority in the matter of 'assisted suicide' is reflected in the ballot box, you may die disappointed, dementia or no.

What then? Does your paganism permit re-incarnation?

If so, perhaps you will share the secret with us.

5 January 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

...'This huge and largely bed-ridden cohort' etc...

So this is an expression a Christian would think is appropriate to conjoin with the words 'DIGNITY' in life? And this from someone supposedly fighting on the Lords side - What warped and disrespectful minds would think this perspective is acceptable to anyone.

If this is what Religion does for the human capacity for empathy and compassion, the sooner it dies on the vine the better.

5 January 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Bluedog. The 70% Christian claim does not equate to 70% agreeing with you. I've seen some daft uses of that figure before but that'll take some beating.

5 January 2012 at 11:29  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Twisted Tongues asked ...
"I asked you to explain how(the mechanism by which) man's free will causes an earthquake and the resulting tsunami that kills thousands."

My earlier suggestion still stands. As I've said, the answer is in the Bible - why not read it? Start with Genesis and take it from there.

Michele
No - that's Ecclesiates 3. Do read the suggested text before you criticise Scripture or seek to misuse it.

Sean Baggaley said...
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 seems rather apt

Actually,I think Ecclesiastes 12: 13 is far more apt.

"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep His commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone."

5 January 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

I guess I have interpret that as "I haven't got a clue". Fair enough.

5 January 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Preacher said...

Understanably a very emotive subject. We must ALL face death at some point, rich or poor, good or bad. Therefore It seems to me that it's not death that's the problem, it's the suffering leading to it that many wish to shorten.
Personally I believe that life is the gift of God, The Bible tells us that we can't live a second longer than our allotted time on Earth.
God is the giver, sustainer & ultimately the owner of life. What we perceive as life here is only the beginning of an eternal existence.
The death of Jesus is relevant here, was it suicide as some have suggested? no!, it was sacrifice.
"I give my life a ransom for many". John 10: 11-18 has Jesus stating this "I lay my life down that I may take it again. No one takes it from me. I have power to lay it down & I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my Father".
I would suggest that it was not suicide but a necessary sacrifice to pay for mankinds sins, if we personally accept it as such.

IMO this proposal is open to all kinds of abuse & with the sufferer dead, murder or manslaughter would be difficult or impossible to prove that it was consensual.
Also this could be lead to a future escalation of the law to encompass non voulantry Euthanasia.
(Remember the introduction of the Common Market & the promises made by Edward Heath that it was just a trading agreement?).
Who would be responsible for administrating the fatal dose?,
Remember Dr Shipman?.
I would conclude that to embark on such a dangerous course is folly.

From a Christian perspective I would beg your readers whatever their current beliefs, to weigh up the issues I have raised about their Eternal destiny as, it's to important an issue to leave to chance, the ramifications are frightening.

5 January 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0
I know you don't like conceeding points however, even you must acknowledge that the examples I've given indicate lives were deliberately taken by another. They are not examples of 'suicide by cop' where death was actively sought by the manipulation of another!

The full burden of responsibilty rests on the shoulders of those taking the lives - not on the person surrending their lives.

Carl
I think the point I'm trying to make is that an act of evil, such as a premeditated killing, cannot be morally acceptable whatever the circumstances or the motives of the person doing the killing.

Evil is evil.

Tongue
Is that what you believe? Bit dim then, aren't you?

In simple words then:

God created the Universe and mankind to enjoy life within it according to His purposes and under His guidance. He gave manking freewill to choose whether to cooperate or not. To take what was given by God, trust Him and enjoy everything, or to go his own way and suffer the consequences - death and suffering. Man chose to take his own path. Sin entered the world and with it death, destruction and suffering. Nature and mankind became distorted and the essential good that God was became corrupted.

That's the basic idea. How it applies to particular events and persons is beyond my knowledge. All I can say is that God alone knows these answers.

5 January 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo's parasitic highjacking of this blog not to mention his perverted understanding of the rules of debate, is an irritation I can happily live without - As for persuading anyone to consider the Christian Community or its teachings as an opportunity to join their number, the fool is a menace. His exhibited persona owes more to that of the Anti-Christ than anything I have ever experienced anywhere.

More's the pity Cranmer didin't stick to his original notion last year and purge his presence for good.

5 January 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo,

So the answer indeed is that you haven't a clue - "All I can say is that God alone knows these answers."

Quite how pointing out what you yourself readily admit makes me "dim" is beyond me.

5 January 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Dreadnaught
So pleased you dispprove. Its heartening to know I actually bother you. As for resembling the "antichrist" more than anything you've encountered elsewhere, well you have led a very sheltered life. Apart from which I understood you to be an atheist. If so, what do you mean when you use this term?

Togue
If you actually understood you wouldn't be quite so dim as you evidently are!

5 January 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Jon said...

Well - I've personally seen no progress in the debate on this topic since my earlier questions.

I think perhaps more light would be shed were people to debate the possible controls on euthanasia. If the controls can't be found to be wanting, then I simply don't see an argument against it. But if the controls are impossible to design, then the argument in favour is difficult to justify because of the potential harm (as with the death penalty, as someone else has already stated).

I know this is a religious blog, but I don't know that literally random verses of the Bible being thrown around actually enhances the debate. 1 Timothy 2 verse 12 clearly supports my view. So there, Dodo.

5 January 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Jon
This far wider than controls. It is about the value of human life and how we care for the terminally ill and those with degenerative, life limiting, illnesses.

And the Biblical verses are not random, that is until you threw in your one! What on earth has the authority of men and women got to do with this debate? Just how does it support your opinion?

Maybe the following is more pertinent:

"A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us."
(2 Timothy 2:11-12)

5 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

A bit stuck are we, dodo?
I'm not so dim that I am advancing a view that is flatly contradicted by science. Unlike you. Death was present in the world a long time before humans. The millions of years old fossils are a "dead" giveaway.

5 January 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Michele

But I do care, and care most vehemently when, not being a Christian, MY options are curtailed and MY choices are being dictated to me and justified by a belief system I do not agree with.

Yes, that's called 'law.' It constrains your choices regardless of your belief system. So let's not go bleating about how options shouldn't be curtailed and choices shouldn't be dictated. Every society in the world curtails options and dictates choices. In fact, those curtailed options and dictated choices will be founded at the most basic level on a belief system. And guess what? Not every one with a curtailed choice will agree with that belief system.

So then the real argument is not about whether options should be curtailed. They will be. The argument is rather about the basis upon which options should be curtailed. The conflict is about whose first principles become the basis of law. Your assertion ...

If you believe that assisted suicide is morally wrong for Christians, fine!! and Christians can choose accordingly. I don't personally care.

... is not a morally neutral assertion. If adopted into law, it would instantiate certain first principles about the nature of man into law. Not uncoincidentally, they would be first principles that proceed from your worldview. They would make the law conform to your understanding of man. The effects of those principles can not be isolated to instances of assisted suicide. They will inevitably affect other areas of life. You see it already. The easy access to abortion has lead to tremendous pressure to abort the disabled. I wonder when the only allowed health care for spina bifida will be abortion. It's a much more cost-effective treatment you realize. Ideas have consequences, and ideas about man have the greatest consequences of all.

If I can stop it, I will. After all, I have to live with the impact of those decisions as well. And I won't care a tinker's dam about your objections to having your choices curtailed.

carl

5 January 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Tongues said ...
"Death was present in the world a long time before humans."

You know that for a 'fact' do you? God can't 'play' with 'time' and 'space'? He's constrained by the 'rules' of His creation? And even if you are correct it 'proves' what exactly?

Carl
Well said. We neeed to stand up to these godless athiests who want to drag us back to the guttter.

We need to fight to this attempt to recast and reconstruct human thinking and human values according to a state of open war against God and morality.

5 January 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Let's do a reality check. A small number of terminally ill patients and dubious lay philosophers who want help with suicide are asking for a huge legal and ethical shift that involves everyone's future ..ours, our parents' and eventually our children's... by cavalierly wiping out core principles of our civilization under the guise of human rights.

We've been through this sick idiocy before in the 20s and 30s, where euthansia was peddled under the pseudo-imperative of endangered "racial" or "genetic health" by the cream of the scietific, medical and social establishments. Nazi Germany, which rather quickly and without much hand-wringing took these "principles" to their logical conclusion, spoiled our appetite for this. Now, with those horrors receeding into the mists of history, it's coming back again and we are dealing with the same issue, but under the rationale of even woollier concepts such as "dignity" and "social justice." As a reminder to all, the mentally ill homeless paupers suffering and dying on our streets now are vicims of the sae concepts, having been thrown out in the name of social justice and individual rights to a supposedly "dignified" life in "the community." Look at their "dignity" and consider their "community"...if you can bear the stench.

In the real world the way this will play itself out is the way it has in Holland, where sob-stories and lofty principles were pumped to a generation, and all sorts of promises of precautionary measures were made, but where now it is the physicians, social workers and bureaucrats who are defining "quality of life" and making end-of-life decisions through routine boiler-plate processes without the bother of having to listen to the persons in question and their relatives. Given the dismal record of our judiciary, we know that that is the inevitable outcome.

So, after some intellectual bloviating about individual rights and dignities, a slew of poignant anecdotals and testimonials in the Sunday papers, and a heart-wrenching tv drama or two, the absolute right and obligation to life will be abrogated, to be transferred to the philosopher kings, the physicians, social workers and administrative centres and bureaucrats masquerading as lower courts and judges. That means ciphers who run "family courts" will decide how long we will live. And this will happen behind closed doors, in camera, with sealed case histories and secrets stats, with no chance of transparency under the pretense of the supposed inviolability of privacy and dignity. The citizen chump, the one running around trying to make ends meet, will be going against the police, social agencies, doctors and pseudo-courts, all of whom are imune by legislation, protected by their unions and associations and who will have nearly unlimited, tax payer-supplied resources at their disposal to get their way, with a fat pension at the end of their distinguished careers as reward.

So no, this is not about religion versus rational and personal decisions. This is about the state sniffing about to see if it can take advantage of the terminally ill, the aged and the poor. It's about morality-free ciphers who want to stop "wasting" money on the old, sick and the poor and to transfer more money and power to themselves.

5 January 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well said Avi. The Inspector would like to announce to his now former Will beneficiaries that the Catholic Church is getting the lot. You heartless ghouls, see you all in hell...

5 January 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

If I'm correct? It's all down to me is it, never mind the science? And I'm supposedly dim?

5 January 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi
Good to see you putting that imagination and talent for story telling to good use!

"Human history has been confronted, for almost a century, with the thunderous bursting forth of an atheism which is both absolute (making man actually deny God himself) and positive (anti-theism, demanding to be thoroughly lived by man and to change the face of the earth)."
(Jacques Maritain)

Ps
Not all professionals employed by the State conform to the amoral, self-seeking sterotype you've drawn!

5 January 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, Inspector! I hope it wasn't anything I wrote to cause you to offer your beneficiaries sour grapes. In an English Lit course that would be called persuasive and effective writing, though.

5 January 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

Ssssshhh ... Eor goodness sake keep that to yuorself, the proddies will think you're trying to buy your way into Heaven! They frown on such things. I know it's silly but they really seem to think Catholics believe that we can purchase our way into Heaven!

Ps
Just how much is a total indulgence these days?

Pss
If you arrive upstairs before me, do have a word in the right ear. I'll do the same if I get there first.

5 January 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
Please calm down, you're starting to sound slightly paranoid. Not a good position in a debate.
Avi.
As always a wise insight. Factual, visionary & readable. Thank You!.

6 January 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Preacher
Just forward planning, dear boy. One never knows the hour or the day!

6 January 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. Not at all old chap. Since this thread has been around, Inspector has been having thoughts of relatives crowding round his sick bed offering a warm euthanizing soup and a stopwatch in their hands. Plus holding clubs behind their backs if the soup doesn’t work.

Dodo. Well really Sir ! It didn’t occur to the Inspector he could buy his way into heaven. But the important thing is it does now; and you say you’re not sure of the going rate ? If the Inspector does ‘beat you to it’ by all means send him a message when you’re on your way up. Will be in the bar, smoking area talking to ex page three girls. (…Well, it IS heaven…).

6 January 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 22.11, your conclusion is entirely rational, unless you have children. In which case you would surely do something to help them and your (potential) grandchildren.

If this communicant's worst fears are confirmed, the Falconer Report is a step in a conditioning process. As it is, the British state already takes 40% of your wealth above a modest threshold on your death. If old age and infirmity are to be 'discouraged' by that state, the state will also be telling your executors that it's time for a large cheque, payable to HM Inland Revenue.

We know that your involuntary bequest to HMG will be wasted, so why not emburse the organisation of your choice!

6 January 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. The Inspector as a Catholic bachelor has no children, or a wife come to that, but he does have three nephews. First class guys (...using that Americanism the British young today like to be called...), so his posts were rather tongue in cheek. Fortunately, at the moment, he’s not liable for death duties, but your wise words should not be ignored. Anyone who is liable should engage an accountant at the earliest to avoid that final spit on your life by Her Majesty’s government.

6 January 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Preacher said...

OIG.
A word of advice. Spend it all now, there are some amazing bargains to be had due to the economic meltdown.
Then, presumably assured of your place in Paradise you can depart with a smile, in the knowledge that 40% of nothing is 0!.


Blessings. Preacher.

7 January 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

No cats to consider then?

One of the most unsavoury aspects of my career is assessing and determining "capacity" in the face of "loved ones" initiating court proceedings to contest wills.

Another point to consider is that should you ever need State support either to remain at home or, God forbid, for nursing care, then you'll be expected to pay for it up to the point where your assetts fall below a certain level. By gifting money now you'll avoid this in the future.

bluedog
Old age and infirmity is already an expensive condition. Just consider the charges for 'home care' and 'residential care'!

Death duty only comes into effect when one has assetts touching £1m or more. Unlikely to bother the 'common man'.

Preacher

You advice, if followed by everyone who is able, would certainly give our ailing economy an injection. Those who can should surely spend and invest. British goods and companies only mind.

7 January 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger Sean Baggaley said...

I see only two cases types to consider:

Case 1. The patient is still of sound mind, but has been advised that they are (a) going to die a long, slow, very painful death; and, (b) can therefore make preparations in advance, should they wish to be euthanised instead.

For such cases, there is no need for panels of judges, doctors, family members, etc. The patient's life belongs to that patient, and to that patient alone. It is their right to decide if they wish to avoid days, months, weeks, or even years of prolonged agony and suffering.

Now, you can complain in terms of god this, and scriptures that, but it matters not one whit: it is not your right to determine what I, or anyone else, chooses to do with their life. Any attempt to claim otherwise is an attempt to usurp their most basic human right: our ownership of our very selves.

There is risk in everything we do, yet most of us freely choose to do them. The bungee cord might break; the car's brakes might fade at a sharp turn on a mountain road; the aircraft's engine might fall off due to faulty maintenance. Few would deny people the freedom to choose which risks to take, because there is no way to avoid risk entirely.

If I choose to take my own life to avoid a long period of suffering, it is my choice, and mine alone. I would take it in full knowledge that, yes, someone might discover a cure the very next day. But I am not an idiot. I will have educated myself about the status of my illness. The onus is on me to judge the probability of such an event to be vanishingly small. And, if I have so judged it, there is no harm, no foul, in my choice.

This is the case type that Dignitas and their rivals deal with: people who have pro-actively requested that they be allowed to die with dignity.

I have absolutely no quarrel with similar institutions being set up in the UK.

A third party may demand that the patient's decision be analysed to ensure that they are making a decision while aware of all the facts (including any outside influences), but this could be handled by a suitable jury panel system. If they decide that the case deserves further investigation because the patient appears to be being coerced, it then becomes a police matter and the existing laws against manslaughter and murder apply.

Furthermore, it would be trivial to make such procedures illegal outside of approved, inspected, and regulated institutions. That means any attempt to euthanise an older relative to get at his money would involve having to dupe an awful lot of people.

I don't think the "Logan's Run" scenario makes for a good counterargument either. It just doesn't make any economic sense to alienate such a large proportion of your population. Older people are voters too, after all; as soon as anyone tried to suggest a state-mandated age limit, you'd have an army of MPs all promising to stop such a thing happening.


Case 2: Patients who are suffering, but who do not have the mental capacity—or even basic consciousness—to make such decisions for themselves.

We already have systems in place for such situations. That's why you occasionally hear about a family choosing to "turn off life-support". There are plenty of checks and balances already. There are likely to be imperfections, but, ultimately, there's no

In summary: there really isn't much to debate here. Even if someone of sound mind were feeling pressured by family or other reasons, it is still their choice to decide what to do about it. Counselling is certainly an option, but if they then choose to die anyway, it's their choice. Your own opinions and agreement with their choice is utterly irrelevant.

7 January 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, by far the best advice on tax evasion (as opposed to avoidance) comes from the Asian community. Clean out your bank accounts and turn the whole lot into gold. Then bury it beneath the fireplace.
Inflation proof too !

Dodo. If the Inspector was so inclined, where would he get a catholic cat from ?

7 January 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger len said...

Insp, No such animals, try sheep?.

7 January 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len
Oh, very good. Convicted by your own words!

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep ... I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and I'm known by my own; even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd."

But you are in good company with your little furry friends.

Cats were cult animals in ancient Egypt. Several ancient religions believed cats are exalted souls, companions or all-knowing guides for humans. Muhammad had a favorite cat too, Muezza. He loved cats so much that "he would do without his cloak rather than disturb one that was sleeping on it".

7 January 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Do you think Vatican cats are celibate ?

WV = 'tercatt' ! Don't ask me how...

7 January 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len
And just to remind you about Jesus' words about leadership:

"Jesus says to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him: Yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He says to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: yea, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

7 January 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector
I don't recall any Pope ever owning such a creature. If there are any in the Vatican, its very unlikely they'd be expected to adopt celibacy! No self control, you see. Other measures would be taken for the sake of human health.

Cats, left to themselves, have a rapid breeding rate. Failure to control the breeding of pet cats by spaying and neutering has resulted in large numbers of feral cats worldwide, with a population of up to 60 million of these animals in the United States alone.

In the USA cats inflict about 400,000 bites per year. Many cat bites will become infected, sometimes with serious consequences such as cat-scratch disease, or rabies. Cats also pose a danger to pregnant women, children and immunosuppressed individuals, since their feces can transmit toxoplasmosis. Infection rates rang from around 40 to 60% in both domestic and stray cats worldwide.

Allergic reactions to cat dander and/or cat saliva are common too. Some humans are allergic to cats, manifested by hay fever, asthma, or a skin. WEekly bathing reduces the amount of dander shed by a cat.

7 January 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Enough old chap, lest Len give his seven the boot.

Could be the Vatican cats are on the rhythm method. Nuns walking around with cat vagina thermometers in their pockets. (...Now there’s an interesting gift for the woman who has everything...)

7 January 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

Doubtful. Not too sure the Billings ovulation method applies to cats and one suspects the Sisters will have higher matters on their minds.

7 January 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Word of advice to courting chaps

Best not mention the rhythm method (...or cat vaginas, come to that...) until at least the second date , and even then, make sure she isn’t drinking anything or has food in her mouth...

7 January 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector

Are you recommending an 'Anglican' approach to sexual morality?

Shameful!

7 January 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Certainly not Dodo. Merely post marriage arrangements.

Incidentally, more risks involved in bring this sensitive issue to the fore is a possible slapped face, head injury, bruising around the genital area, and the opportunity of having your own pint poured over you...

7 January 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It would seem that I have had a lucky escape then Inspector! Lol

7 January 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, sweet Marie xxx

7 January 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Uh, should we all leave?

9 January 2012 at 03:46  
Blogger len said...

Dodo(7 January 2012 16:55)

And what sheep was Peter sent to feed?.

Did it ever seem strange to you that most of the New Testament, following the Book of Acts, was written by Paul, and not by Peter? Did you ever wonder why, after Peter initiated the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10 and 11), he and others of the twelve apostles suddenly vanish from view? And why only Peter and John reappear, for a fleeting moment, in Jerusalem at the inspired conference recorded in Acts 15? You read, after Acts 15, only of Paul’s ministry to the GENTILES. Why? What happened to Apostles especially Peter?.

Read it, from your Bible, with your own eyes:

“Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL!”(Matthew 10:5-6)

Jesus meant what He said! He “COMMANDED them.” The twelve were forbidden to spread the gospel among the Gentiles. It was Paul who was commissioned to that work.

The Jews at Rome had never heard the apostle Peter preach. Oh yes, there had been a “Peter” in Rome ever since the days of Claudius Caesar. That Peter was in a high office. He was chief of the Babylonian Mysteries. His office was that of a “Peter” - meaning an Interpreter or Opener of Secrets. The word “peter”, in Babylonian and Hebrew, means “opener” - hence it is used in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament for “firstling” - one that first OPENS the womb. THAT Peter of Rome was named Simon, too......... Simon Magus (Acts 8)

Paul, not Peter, preached in Rome. The true gospel had not been PUBLICLY preached in Rome before Paul arrived in A.D. 59. Paul never once mentions Peter in his epistle to the brethren in Rome, most of whom had been converted on Pentecost in 31 A.D. Not even the Jews at Rome had heard the gospel preached before Paul arrived.

10 January 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

I was simply making the point that you shouldn't bad mouth sheep! For whatever reason, Jesus used them in His analogies, rather than cats.

I really can't be bothered going over old ground about the primacy of Peter and the silly arguments you advance against it. It is very clear what Jesus said and what He meant in the passages I quoted and in others I've posted.

Where on earth do you dig all this nonsense up about early Church history?

10 January 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I got about half way through the comments and had to say something about this absurdity some are suggesting about Jesus' death on the cross being suicide.

In effect Jesus didn't have a choice in the matter. Being the Son in the Trinity means that, because they agree on order in their relationship with each other, He is submissive to His Father's will. Whilst He made the request "take this cup away from me" He knew that not only would His Father say no but that He, the Son, would stil go through with the plan for saving humanity. And the reason this cannot be considered suicide is because the Son does as the Father asks, because it is His nature to do so. If He did not do so then He would not be the Son and thus His death would do nothing. Jesus could no more disobey the Father than we can stop the cells in our body dying, it's just how it is.

11 January 2012 at 01:20  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Youthpasta

The Three Persons of the Trinity are of one essence and equal - there is no such ranking between them. Jesus as One Person of the Trinity was actually one with the Father and Spirit.

As both God and man Jesus fulfilled His Divine mission. As you say, what else could He do? This is an important point as it counters the simplistic theology that Jesua died merely to appease the Father's wrath. Yes, He did but as God His sacrifice was also an act of self-giving love by God too.

11 January 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dodo, I'm afraid your understanding of the Trinity is off. If each person is equal in "rank" (for want of a better term) then it leaves us with a problem, as Jesus clearly puts himself under the Father's authority "not my will, but Yours".
The fact that their is a hierarchy in the Trinity does not make the Father any greater than the Son or Spirit, it just means that the Trinity lives in a way that creates order between themselves and they are happy playing the roles they are.
Because of this, the Father and the Spirit did not die, though they did experience the separation from the Son at the cross.

Now, it is also very important that this is the case because otherwise the argument against Jesus committing suicide falls flat. If Jesus is equally in control of his destiny as the rest of the Trinity then, using His Godly powers, He could have saved Himself rather than choosing to stay there. But instead He was there because the Father's will demanded it to bring salvation to mankind. This meant that Jesus was told that He had to stay there and die, rather than Have the right to choose and thus make it suicide.

12 January 2012 at 08:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Youthpasta

I don't claim to understand the Trinity - who can? However, the Three Persons are One in essence. No rank or order of seniority. Jesus was speaking as a man as well as God in the Garden. His mission was Messianic as man and God and, of course, His manhood would submit to the Godhead.

The Second Person of the Trinity did not 'die' on the Cross; Jesus the man died and was risen through the power of God, His own power. How could God die? The Father and Spirit were not 'seperated' from the the Son - how could God be divided.

And this does not support a theory of assisted suicide. Jesus said and did what He had authority to say and do as God. Yes He knew where it would end and He did have the power to prevent it. He wasn't following orders from God the Father. He was doing what His nature demanded, following the Will of God, of whom He was one with, regardless of the cost to Himself as a man.

Complex - but simple!

12 January 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,your foundations are so shaky that even underpinning will not save your house!.

12 January 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

Instead of abuse why not offer your understanding. But then, you're not a believer in the Trinity, are you? You had that debate with Albert and revealed your position on the Incarnation and the Godhead. That's what comes from not having doctrine and making it up as yougo along.

Show me to be wrong.

12 January 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The Second Person of the Trinity did not 'die' on the Cross; Jesus the man died and was risen through the power of God, His own power."

What's the big deal then? Why do people make such a fuss about the suffering and the death? Lots of us have to go through that and lots of us have to watch people we love die too. It's hardly a biggie for JC, was it?

14 January 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger len said...

Dodo'( Show me to be wrong.'12 January 2012 23:21)

Have you got anything more challenging for me?.

15 January 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len said ...

"Dodo'( Show me to be wrong.'12 January 2012 23:21)
Have you got anything more challenging for me?."


Your arrogance is astonishing. So tell me!

16 January 2012 at 17:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older