Assisted killing

First published in Letters

THOSE of us involved in defending the culture of life, not death, are familiar with terms that tend to hide the real fact of the matter. Before the Abortion Act became law on October 27 1967 and before its implementation on April 271968, it was described as the “Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill”. This description hides the reality of what was in fact being debated (the legalisation of abortion) because when a woman gives birth to her child her pregnancy is terminated.

We now have the same thing happening with Lord Falconer’s “Assisted Dying Bill”. We are all assisted to die when our time comes, most readers will recognise that they assisted someone to die; this is when you are there for your loved one, as they approach death, the doctors and nurses are there to assist them through any pain or discomfort. People even non-family members are there at times in hospital to assist a person with their food. I know many people have done this for strangers in hospital beds while visiting their own relatives and friends who were sick and/or dying. Let’s stop conning the general public and tell it as it is – its “assisted suicide”, and its killing.

Paul Botto SPUC Information Officer Wales

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:48pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

All life is scared, they should be providing better care not offering them a way to die instead, it is the abandonment of proper care to enable any quality of life that is all wrong. The option to lessen restrictions on who administers the death pill or injection is a licence to cull disabled people, a sector at the forefront of this 'humane' kill option. Disabled people's lives being viewed of lesser value than others is a reason to oppose. Disabled have been particularly targeted for mercy killing, they are wondering why the system and law is so eager to end their lives..... Didn't Cilla Black want the end of life pill at 75 ? and there was zilch wrong with her but old age which comes to us all. These vain celebs with no life except in the limelight, and not even ill, are the ones we should perhaps be encouraging ! they should not be allowed to influence people with real issues. It is bad enough wales adopted automatic organ removal without permission, what next ? Our body OUR right.
All life is scared, they should be providing better care not offering them a way to die instead, it is the abandonment of proper care to enable any quality of life that is all wrong. The option to lessen restrictions on who administers the death pill or injection is a licence to cull disabled people, a sector at the forefront of this 'humane' kill option. Disabled people's lives being viewed of lesser value than others is a reason to oppose. Disabled have been particularly targeted for mercy killing, they are wondering why the system and law is so eager to end their lives..... Didn't Cilla Black want the end of life pill at 75 ? and there was zilch wrong with her but old age which comes to us all. These vain celebs with no life except in the limelight, and not even ill, are the ones we should perhaps be encouraging ! they should not be allowed to influence people with real issues. It is bad enough wales adopted automatic organ removal without permission, what next ? Our body OUR right. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

9:57am Wed 30 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

blooper, should have read at start, sacred, NOT Scared..
blooper, should have read at start, sacred, NOT Scared.. Mervyn James
  • Score: -2

6:12pm Wed 30 Jul 14

mocyoung says...

Another diatribe from the extreme religious lobby. To lecture us on life and death when the same text you readily quote is being used as justification for genocide in the Gaza Strip is rather disingenuous. Religion should have no impact on daily life. It should be private guidance for an individual rather than the political weapon SPUC and others use it as. You have no right to tell others how to live their lives, or how to die their deaths.

What is life? Life isn't granted by a higher being, it is created by a biological process. Life is just as natural as death. You cannot have one without the other. An individual should be allowed to choose how to live their own life. They should also be allowed to choose how to die their own death.

As for abortion, that's another argument which has little relevance to the euthanasia debate. I would however argue the medically sound point that anything that cannot survive without support off a mother within a womb is not capable of "life". In many ways, a foetus is a parasite. Therefore unborn children up to the abortion limit which are not capable of independent life cannot be killed, because they are not "alive" yet.

I'm sorry if this conflicts with your doctrine as people of faith, but you must face the facts that scientific knowledge and the attitudes of MOST people in society have moved beyond the ignorance in which Abrahamic religions were forged out of the fear of the uneducated masses. SPUC and other fundamentalist religious zealots like them have no right to comment on this argument in these modern times.
Another diatribe from the extreme religious lobby. To lecture us on life and death when the same text you readily quote is being used as justification for genocide in the Gaza Strip is rather disingenuous. Religion should have no impact on daily life. It should be private guidance for an individual rather than the political weapon SPUC and others use it as. You have no right to tell others how to live their lives, or how to die their deaths. What is life? Life isn't granted by a higher being, it is created by a biological process. Life is just as natural as death. You cannot have one without the other. An individual should be allowed to choose how to live their own life. They should also be allowed to choose how to die their own death. As for abortion, that's another argument which has little relevance to the euthanasia debate. I would however argue the medically sound point that anything that cannot survive without support off a mother within a womb is not capable of "life". In many ways, a foetus is a parasite. Therefore unborn children up to the abortion limit which are not capable of independent life cannot be killed, because they are not "alive" yet. I'm sorry if this conflicts with your doctrine as people of faith, but you must face the facts that scientific knowledge and the attitudes of MOST people in society have moved beyond the ignorance in which Abrahamic religions were forged out of the fear of the uneducated masses. SPUC and other fundamentalist religious zealots like them have no right to comment on this argument in these modern times. mocyoung
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree