Search This Blog

Saturday, 1 August 2009

More on dying with dignity

A bunch of Christians say the House of Lords ruling on assisted suicide – a victory for Debbie Purdy, who is campaigning for loved ones who help a person to die with dignity not to be prosecuted – goes against the sanctity of life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But in a story on their website, a bunch of religious lunatics called Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCfON) say the ruling has “grave implications”.

Don’t know whether they were aware of the pun when they wrote that.

But have a look at their riveting logic:

Nazis first legalized voluntary euthanasia, then involuntarily killed hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill – all prior to the unspeakable tragedy of the holocaust. The Dutch started with assisted suicide, “progressed” to voluntary euthanasia, and now a physician kills patients there without their consent.

The last claim looks a bit dodgy, or at least lacking in detail, but I can’t be arsed to go and check on the Dutch law on the matter, so let’s leave it aside.

But isn’t it a leap from the legalisation by the Nazis of voluntary euthanasia to the killing of hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill – and then to the Holocaust? All of these three things happened, but is there a causal chain?

It’s amazing how these religionists will clutch at all kinds of tenuous links to prove a point. And, given the weird things religionists believe in, should we take any of them seriously? How are we to separate the good sense – and there no doubt will be some – from the bollocks?
Related link:
Assisting dignified death
What the law saysTelegraph feature

1 comment:

Stuart Hartill said...

Having once run a Death with Dignity campaign I can clarify the situation in Holland, and the reasons why right-to lifers concentrate on it.
The simple answer is - they don't take anyone's life without their consent in Holland.
Right To Life groups like to twist a small element of an admirably honest report produced regularly by the Dutch authorities which rigorously reports figures from a tiny 'grey area' where it is impossible to know how clearly consent was given after all the other checks (two doctors signing off, pyschiatric evaluation, etc.). They pretend this shows the Dutch system 'doesn't work' where in reality, if you demanded the same burden of 'proof' nobody could even have a tooth fixed. They also pretend not to know that the reason the Dutch government monitors this 'grey area' is to eliminate it completely.
They also pretend all this is relevant. It isn't, because as all the church and right to life groups who sat in on the last Parliamentary consultation know, the Oregon system is the only one ever agreed as a model for possible UK use if the law changes. They were part of the group which decided that, as any brief look at Parliamentary committee records shows, but always lie about the subject when they brief the press or comment knowing that 99% of the UK population lacks the time or facilities to monitor Westminster committees whose work does not make the daily news.
Goebbels, I'm sure would be proud to see his natural heirs practicing such bullshit.