The 70-year-old broadcaster Ray Gosling has now been released after 30 hours of questioning after he admitted on regional television that he’d mercy-killed a lover who was dying with AIDS.
Gosling made his admission in an East Midlands BBC programme this week. He’s said to have cooperated with police but has not revealed the name of the person he allegedly killed.
The link in the previous paragraph takes you to our embedded YouTube video in which Gosling makes his startling admission to camera while strolling through gravestones.
He was questioned by Nottinghamshire Police, who are said to have treated him kindly while he was in custody.
Showing posts with label Assisted suicide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assisted suicide. Show all posts
Friday, 19 February 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Ray’s confession – a moving picture
As you would expect, since the news broke on Monday night that the broadcaster Ray Gosling had mercy-killed a lover who was dying painfully with AIDS, column inches and broadcast minutes galore have been filled with the sad story, which we carried on this blog yesterday.
Since I posted that story, a YouTube video has appeared. We need say no more about the matter than we did yesterday, when we criticised the do-gooder who wanted to see a prosecution of Ray Gosling. But here is the short clip from that programme in which Ray Gosling made his secret known to viewers in the East Midlands – and now to the world.
Since I posted that story, a YouTube video has appeared. We need say no more about the matter than we did yesterday, when we criticised the do-gooder who wanted to see a prosecution of Ray Gosling. But here is the short clip from that programme in which Ray Gosling made his secret known to viewers in the East Midlands – and now to the world.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Broadcaster Gosling’s sad, sad secret – and the do-gooders who want to prosecute him
I refer to Ray Gosling (pictured), the 70-year-old broadcaster and gay-rights activist, who has made hundreds of documentaries over decades for the BBC, who admitted on British television last night, “Maybe this is the time to share a secret that I’ve kept for a long time. I killed someone once. He was a young chap. He had been my lover, and he had AIDS.”
In the regional BBC1 television programme Inside Out, which went out only in the East Midlands, Gosling continued, “Doctors said, ‘There’s nothing we can do.’ And he was in terrible, terrible pain, and I said to the doctor, “Leave me, just for a bit,” and he went away, and I picked up the pillow and I smothered him until he was dead.
“The doctor came back and I said, ‘He’s gone.’ Nothing more was ever said.
“When you love someone, it’s difficult to see them suffer. My feelings on euthanasia are like jelly – they wobble about.
“We’d got a pact. If it got worse, the pain, and nobody could do anything, yes, I said I’d do it. It’s a terrible, terrible thing to know what to do.
“This is the time to share a secret I have kept for quite a long time.”
The BBC news website spoke to Dr Peter Saunders, of a pressure group called Care Not Killing, who has called for police to investigate.
Saunders said, “We have a case, by Ray’s account, not of assisted suicide but of intentional killing or murder.”
Well, I think Ray Gosling would have a better idea than you of whether his lover needed a speedy dispatch rather than a prolonged and painful death, thank you very much, Dr Saunders. Whether you are religious or not, you certainly belong up there with the Deluded Herd. Sure, there can be abuses, but that applies to anything, and safeguards need to be built into any law that would permit assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.
If we had a system whereby people could go into a hospital and choose to have a painless death administerd to them, we’d be a much more caring and civilised society. Where is your sense of compassion?
Anyway, back to last night’s programme, in which Gosling was asked by Inside Out presenter Marie Ashby if he had regrets. “Absolutely none,” he said. “He was in terrible pain – I was there and I saw it. It breaks you into pieces.”
Over the years, Gosling has made hundreds of documentary films, and I was lucky enough to catch the repeats last year of a captivating series of films about his decision to move into sheltered accommodation, which won Jonathan Gili Most Entertaining Documentary award. It was repeated on British television last year.
He’s an idiosyncratic broadcaster with a quirky style, and is a delight to watch and hear. If you get the chance to see one of Gosling’s films, do so.
See also the website he and fellow campaigner Allan Horsfall – a founder of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality in the UK – run called Gay Monitor, which keeps tabs on court cases concerning older gay men who may have been wrongly accused.
The pair say on the website:
We’ve watched, supported and sometimes advised men caught up in appalling prosecutions during recent and ongoing current times in Lancashire – but we’re certain similar is going on all over the country and this website hopes to show the bigger picture.
It’s worth looking at, and supporting.
Monday, 1 February 2010
When death means life
“If I knew that I could die, I would live,” the writer Sir Terry Pratchett will tell the annual Dimbleby Lecture tomorrow. “My life, my death, my choice.”
His views are part of a (London) Times article today, in which the bestselling author – who’s suffering from early-onset Alzheimer’s disease – says the time has come for assisted suicide to be legal.
And that’s the only moral and ethical way to look at it. But opposition – often but not always in the guise of members of the Deluded Herd – will bring out all kinds of “reasons” why this should not be allowed, one being that it is open to abuse.
So is just about anything you can mention. And, yes, it will be abused by those who want to bump off Aunt Peggy for her millions. But that just meant we’ll need to build safeguards to minimise such abuses, as we do, or should do, with other things that can be abused.
His views are part of a (London) Times article today, in which the bestselling author – who’s suffering from early-onset Alzheimer’s disease – says the time has come for assisted suicide to be legal.
And that’s the only moral and ethical way to look at it. But opposition – often but not always in the guise of members of the Deluded Herd – will bring out all kinds of “reasons” why this should not be allowed, one being that it is open to abuse.
So is just about anything you can mention. And, yes, it will be abused by those who want to bump off Aunt Peggy for her millions. But that just meant we’ll need to build safeguards to minimise such abuses, as we do, or should do, with other things that can be abused.
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:
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 says – Telegraph feature
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 says – Telegraph feature
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Assisting dignified death
Could a change in the law on assisted suicides come a step closer tomorrow when the UK’s highest court delivers its judgment in the case of Debbie Purdy, whose long legal fight has put her at the centre of the controversy?
“Purdy,” says the Guardian, linked to above, “who has multiple sclerosis, claims that uncertainty as to whether her husband – the Cuban violinist Omar Puente – would face prosecution for assisting her suicide abroad breaches her human rights. She will learn tomorrow whether the Law Lords agree with her and demand a clarification of the law.”
Only religious dinosaurs could possibly disagree with a law that allows someone to help someone else to die a dignified and painless death, because the only objections to it – once all possible safeguards against bumping off Granny because we need her dosh/bedroom/classic dildo collection are in place – are irrational. Religion is irrational.
“Purdy,” says the Guardian, linked to above, “who has multiple sclerosis, claims that uncertainty as to whether her husband – the Cuban violinist Omar Puente – would face prosecution for assisting her suicide abroad breaches her human rights. She will learn tomorrow whether the Law Lords agree with her and demand a clarification of the law.”
Only religious dinosaurs could possibly disagree with a law that allows someone to help someone else to die a dignified and painless death, because the only objections to it – once all possible safeguards against bumping off Granny because we need her dosh/bedroom/classic dildo collection are in place – are irrational. Religion is irrational.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Dying with dignity – and those who want to prevent it
There’s talk of suicide in Brighton, UK, today. But there are those who’d like to stop it.
Yesterday, it was Bournemouth’s turn, when “euthanasia expert” Philip Nitschke chose the town as the first stop on a UK tour championing assisted suicide.
“The town’s great and good did their best to keep him at bay,” says the Guardian, “and immigration officials pounced when he arrived at Heathrow airport. But today [Tuesday] at a hotel in Bournemouth, Philip Nitschke, also known as Dr Death, calmly explained to 100 middle-aged and elderly people how, if they chose, they could take their own lives.”
Known to whom as Dr Death? Known only to his critics, I assume, but we are not told.
One person who will be at the Brighthelm Centre at 1 p.m. today is Barry Duke, editor of the Freethinker and its blog. He writes:
But Duke talks of one Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of Christian Medical Fellowship, who says, “We’d like to see these talks stopped. He is effectively offering a loaded gun to people who need support.”
He wants to see the talks stopped. He knows, presumably, that Nitschke won’t be breaking the law and handing out lethal substances. So it’s just the talks he wants to stop. He doesn’t want people even to talk about it.
Nitschke makes the point that suicide is legal, so where’s the harm in telling people about it? “They simply cannot get information and they become more desperate, and desperate people do desperate things,” he says.
The Guardian quotes Father Anthony Pennicott, of the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic church, who says, “This is not the answer. The issue should be debated in a more sane, orderly manner.”
Well, of course, the church is always wheeled on, as if anyone speaking on its behalf could possibly have a rational opinion.
A priest may well have an informed opinion as a person, but it’s up to him or her to speak from a different “pulpit”, as it were. Bringing on the religionists every time assisted suicide – or suicide at all – is mentioned is just crap journalism, as is the biased, clichéd headline, worthy of the Star, the Express or the Sun: “Dr Death” gives right-to-die lesson to seaside retirement town.
One chap who attended the Bournemouth event, Edward Gwinnell, who’s 79, tells the Guardian, “I wanted to learn more about Exit. It’s designed to get you a peaceful exit from this life. I don’t want to degenerate into an unthinking mess who needs constant care and attention. I want to be able to make my exit with dignity. Human beings have the right to the truth and discussion. We should be able to discuss things. It is a country of free speech.”
Well, that last sentence is debatable when people are barred from the country for wanting to speak and people are afraid to criticise religious hatred when it’s practised by certain religions, but there you go. He makes good points.
The irrational reaction of the religious to any talk of euthanasia is usually knee-jerk. There will be abuses, they say. Well, of course there will be abuses, just as there are abuses of all kinds of laws.
It’s up to legislators to find ways to stop abuses, and – working with responsible, freethinking doctors and other healthcare professionals – help people to make informed decisions about their exit from life and then to be able to carry it out safely and with dignity.
I’m always reminded of an excellent dystopian sci-fi movie from 1973 called Soylent Green, in which global warming and overpopulation are on everyone’s mind – much as now.
Sol Roth (Edward G Robinson), an elderly police researcher, decides – for reasons I won’t go into at risk of spoiling it for anyone yet to see it, except to say that, in his case, the choice wasn’t motivated by ageing or incurable illness – to end his life. But he has a wonderful, dedicated government facility to help him to do it.
“There,” says the Wikipedia entry on the film, “he is taken to a comfortable bed, is given a poison-laced beverage, and is shown panoramic views of an unspoiled pristine Earth as he dies.”
And I can vouch for the fact that he is depicted as dying peacefully and with dignity. (And the music he chose, if memory serves, was “Morning” from Peer Gynt – bit of a cliché, but kinda nice.)
It’s nonetheless a touching scene, and shows how things could be if only the cling-to-life-at-all-costs-because-God-says-so brigade would just clam up, or those in authority would stop listening to them.
Yesterday, it was Bournemouth’s turn, when “euthanasia expert” Philip Nitschke chose the town as the first stop on a UK tour championing assisted suicide.
“The town’s great and good did their best to keep him at bay,” says the Guardian, “and immigration officials pounced when he arrived at Heathrow airport. But today [Tuesday] at a hotel in Bournemouth, Philip Nitschke, also known as Dr Death, calmly explained to 100 middle-aged and elderly people how, if they chose, they could take their own lives.”
Known to whom as Dr Death? Known only to his critics, I assume, but we are not told.
One person who will be at the Brighthelm Centre at 1 p.m. today is Barry Duke, editor of the Freethinker and its blog. He writes:
Let me assure readers that I am in no way suicidal – but I, alongside around 80 percent of the British population, support the legalisation of assisted suicide, and I passionately believe that adults of a sound mind should be allowed to attend any gathering where the issue can be discussed in a dispassionate, rational way.
But Duke talks of one Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of Christian Medical Fellowship, who says, “We’d like to see these talks stopped. He is effectively offering a loaded gun to people who need support.”
He wants to see the talks stopped. He knows, presumably, that Nitschke won’t be breaking the law and handing out lethal substances. So it’s just the talks he wants to stop. He doesn’t want people even to talk about it.
Nitschke makes the point that suicide is legal, so where’s the harm in telling people about it? “They simply cannot get information and they become more desperate, and desperate people do desperate things,” he says.
The Guardian quotes Father Anthony Pennicott, of the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic church, who says, “This is not the answer. The issue should be debated in a more sane, orderly manner.”
Well, of course, the church is always wheeled on, as if anyone speaking on its behalf could possibly have a rational opinion.
A priest may well have an informed opinion as a person, but it’s up to him or her to speak from a different “pulpit”, as it were. Bringing on the religionists every time assisted suicide – or suicide at all – is mentioned is just crap journalism, as is the biased, clichéd headline, worthy of the Star, the Express or the Sun: “Dr Death” gives right-to-die lesson to seaside retirement town.
One chap who attended the Bournemouth event, Edward Gwinnell, who’s 79, tells the Guardian, “I wanted to learn more about Exit. It’s designed to get you a peaceful exit from this life. I don’t want to degenerate into an unthinking mess who needs constant care and attention. I want to be able to make my exit with dignity. Human beings have the right to the truth and discussion. We should be able to discuss things. It is a country of free speech.”
Well, that last sentence is debatable when people are barred from the country for wanting to speak and people are afraid to criticise religious hatred when it’s practised by certain religions, but there you go. He makes good points.
The irrational reaction of the religious to any talk of euthanasia is usually knee-jerk. There will be abuses, they say. Well, of course there will be abuses, just as there are abuses of all kinds of laws.
It’s up to legislators to find ways to stop abuses, and – working with responsible, freethinking doctors and other healthcare professionals – help people to make informed decisions about their exit from life and then to be able to carry it out safely and with dignity.
I’m always reminded of an excellent dystopian sci-fi movie from 1973 called Soylent Green, in which global warming and overpopulation are on everyone’s mind – much as now.
Sol Roth (Edward G Robinson), an elderly police researcher, decides – for reasons I won’t go into at risk of spoiling it for anyone yet to see it, except to say that, in his case, the choice wasn’t motivated by ageing or incurable illness – to end his life. But he has a wonderful, dedicated government facility to help him to do it.
“There,” says the Wikipedia entry on the film, “he is taken to a comfortable bed, is given a poison-laced beverage, and is shown panoramic views of an unspoiled pristine Earth as he dies.”
And I can vouch for the fact that he is depicted as dying peacefully and with dignity. (And the music he chose, if memory serves, was “Morning” from Peer Gynt – bit of a cliché, but kinda nice.)
It’s nonetheless a touching scene, and shows how things could be if only the cling-to-life-at-all-costs-because-God-says-so brigade would just clam up, or those in authority would stop listening to them.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
The right to die
It’s no wonder the British papers focus on assisted suicide and euthanasia today, with Sky about to show the moment a man with motor neurone disease chose the dignified way out.
Craig Ewert (59) went to the very sensible Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal.
Anti-euthanasia groups are, predictably, not chuffed about this – and you just know there’s a big religious element in that lot. Well they can reach for the off switch. Provided all the checks and balances are seen to (and Dignitas works within Swiss law), rational people have no difficulty coping with the idea that someone might wish to take his own life, and, if he’s incapable of delivering the coup de grâce himself, asking for some help.
The Daily Mail talks of a “shocking” film that’s likely to cause a row over broadcasting standards.
The Daily Mirror asks whether the Sky documentary, Right to Die?, is just an attempt to boost ratings.
Well, it’s a fact of life that programmes are there to boost ratings. That’s how it works. Just as your newspaper, Mr Mirror, uses all sorts of salacious means to boost sales. That doesn’t mean you don’t also carry useful stuff, and, equally, it doesn’t mean that Sky doesn’t carry useful stuff, either.
The Independent, on the other hand, confronts it head-on. On its front page, Mary Ewert writes about Craig’s decision to enlist the Swiss charity to help him die. She says her husband wanted his death to be filmed because “when death is hidden . . . people don’t face fears about it”.
The red-top Sun is sensible about the thing, too, in its feature on the subject (including the photo we reproduce here of Ewert about to die, while a doctor checks his pulse). It does quote John Beyer of the self-appointed TV watchdog Mediawatch UK, who fears people may get the wrong idea from watching it.
“This is quite an important political issue at the moment and my anxieties are that the programme will influence public opinion,” he says. “Documentary makers produce all manner of programmes and no one can stop that or intervene unless they fail to comply with the requirements of the Communications Act.
“If this programme is not impartial and promotes euthanasia then it would be in breach of the act – in short it must not influence members of the public or a change in the law. Broadcasters must always remain impartial otherwise they could influence the public or other sufferers into making a similar action – that’s my anxiety.”
Yes, a programme like this should be impartial, but what if it did influence other sufferers? It may provide the information for other sufferers to seek this way out – dignified, painless and quick.
And why should it not influence a change in the law? It would be a sensible change if a clinic like Dignitas’s were to be set up here in the UK, with death on the National Health Service (paradoxical though that sounds).
This programme follows yesterday’s good news that the parents of a 23-year-old rugby player who killed himself at the same Swiss clinic will not be charged over his death.
The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service announced that yesterday in the case of Daniel James (23), was left paralysed from the chest down after a scrum collapsed on him during a practice session in March last year. He died by drinking a barbiturate solution in the Dignitas clinic in September, with his parents Julie and Mark, by his side.
The CPS had considered bringing a prosecution under the Suicide Act, but decided it would not be in the public interest. No one has so far been successfully prosecuted for assisting suicide.
See this Dignitas site with some information in English.
Craig Ewert (59) went to the very sensible Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal.
Anti-euthanasia groups are, predictably, not chuffed about this – and you just know there’s a big religious element in that lot. Well they can reach for the off switch. Provided all the checks and balances are seen to (and Dignitas works within Swiss law), rational people have no difficulty coping with the idea that someone might wish to take his own life, and, if he’s incapable of delivering the coup de grâce himself, asking for some help.The Daily Mail talks of a “shocking” film that’s likely to cause a row over broadcasting standards.
The Daily Mirror asks whether the Sky documentary, Right to Die?, is just an attempt to boost ratings.
Well, it’s a fact of life that programmes are there to boost ratings. That’s how it works. Just as your newspaper, Mr Mirror, uses all sorts of salacious means to boost sales. That doesn’t mean you don’t also carry useful stuff, and, equally, it doesn’t mean that Sky doesn’t carry useful stuff, either.
The Independent, on the other hand, confronts it head-on. On its front page, Mary Ewert writes about Craig’s decision to enlist the Swiss charity to help him die. She says her husband wanted his death to be filmed because “when death is hidden . . . people don’t face fears about it”.
The red-top Sun is sensible about the thing, too, in its feature on the subject (including the photo we reproduce here of Ewert about to die, while a doctor checks his pulse). It does quote John Beyer of the self-appointed TV watchdog Mediawatch UK, who fears people may get the wrong idea from watching it.
“This is quite an important political issue at the moment and my anxieties are that the programme will influence public opinion,” he says. “Documentary makers produce all manner of programmes and no one can stop that or intervene unless they fail to comply with the requirements of the Communications Act.
“If this programme is not impartial and promotes euthanasia then it would be in breach of the act – in short it must not influence members of the public or a change in the law. Broadcasters must always remain impartial otherwise they could influence the public or other sufferers into making a similar action – that’s my anxiety.”
Yes, a programme like this should be impartial, but what if it did influence other sufferers? It may provide the information for other sufferers to seek this way out – dignified, painless and quick.
And why should it not influence a change in the law? It would be a sensible change if a clinic like Dignitas’s were to be set up here in the UK, with death on the National Health Service (paradoxical though that sounds).
This programme follows yesterday’s good news that the parents of a 23-year-old rugby player who killed himself at the same Swiss clinic will not be charged over his death.
The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service announced that yesterday in the case of Daniel James (23), was left paralysed from the chest down after a scrum collapsed on him during a practice session in March last year. He died by drinking a barbiturate solution in the Dignitas clinic in September, with his parents Julie and Mark, by his side.
The CPS had considered bringing a prosecution under the Suicide Act, but decided it would not be in the public interest. No one has so far been successfully prosecuted for assisting suicide.
See this Dignitas site with some information in English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)