Skip to comments.British Survey: Disabled Opposes Legalizing Assisted Suicide
Posted on 05/09/2011 4:12:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
A new national survey in England finds disabled Britons are opposed to the national government legalizing the practice of assisted suicide, and one pro-life group is welcoming the results.
The survey, commissioned by disability group Scope, found 70% of disabled people are concerned about pressure being placed on other disabled people to end their lives prematurely if there were a change in the law on assisted suicide. The survey also found that most young adults share the concerns of older generations about the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide.
Anthony Ozimic, the communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), responded to the poll, saying, We welcome this survey and take encouragement from its findings. Scope, which commissioned the survey, is not part of the pro-life movement and there is no suggestion of it being partisan.
The surveys questions were worded fairly, unlike recent general public opinion polls which use the pro-euthanasia lobbys euphemisms, such as assisted dying. Disabled people, including young adults, are increasingly alarmed by the celebrity-driven push for legalizing assisted suicide. Disabled people want help to live well and die naturally, not lethal injections or poison-pills, he added.
This year, assisted suicide backers in England have been pressing again for legalization of the practice and, in January, they went further by trashing disabled people in the process.
In the British Medical Journal, Tony Delamothe wrote a column titled One and a Half Truths About Assisted Dying, in which he disparaged the disabled.
Sixteen months ago I argued that the debate on assisted dying had been hijacked by disabled people who wanted to live and that it should be reclaimed for terminally ill people who wanted to die, he said.
But American bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, in a blog post, called him on the carpet.
Thanks to the spread of suicide tourism, the UK is going through another in a series of pushes to legalize assisted suicide. As with the last time, when a bill was introduced in the House of Lords, a commission is studying the issue. And advocates are pretending that their goal is what it clearly is not, he writes.
Smith says the pro-assisted suicide activism in the United Kingdom has explicitly not been limited to the terminally ill and writes the example of the bill in the Scottish Parliament to legalize the practice, saying MSP Margo MacDonald is referenced by Delamothe.
Yet, it specifically would have permitted assisted suicide for people with non terminal disabilities, he notes.
I'm sure the culture of death is baffled that their intended victims aren't lining up to be slaughtered.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Perhaps the disabled recognize just how easily a homicide could be masked as assisted suicide?
This is always a difficult issue for me.
I think the right to end one’s own tread upon this mortal coil is an absolute right — it 100% up the the individual and the State has no right to interfere with that decision. Anyone who says other is merely a statist demanding their personal moral code be forced upon others, limiting freedom in an almost infinite manner.
The slippery slope begins when it goes from being a personal option to an obligation (a’la eskimos mythos, Logan’s Run or Soylent Green).
So long as a human draws breath and is clear on his/her intentions, the State should stay the hell out of end-life decisions: one way or the other.
Indeed. Some people do note that things that were once illegal become permissible and then, after time, become mandatory. Voluntary assisted suicide for the disabled will rapidly become involuntary assisted suicide once some f*cking accountant with a spreadsheet finds that killing the disabled will save the National Health Service (NHS) a few quid.
Welcome to the brave new world...
Once you accept that a person has the right to decide to end their own life, you open the door to others’ deciding that the person in question is too deluded or politically incorrect to make the right decision.
Disabled are like smokers, a small minority. Their vote doesn’t count. The rest see them as easy prey for their own gain.
>>Once you accept that a person has the right to decide to end their own life, you open the door to others deciding that the person in question is too deluded or politically incorrect to make the right decision.<<
I don’t necessarily buy that premise, but if you follow that logic, it should end with the decision from someone who is NOT in their “right mind” to always be in favor of life.
But it is wrong for the State to unilaterally take away an individual’s decision to end his/her life (so long as it does not take others’ in the process).
But the devil is always in the details.
Once you accept that the state has the right to restrict peoples' decisions about their own lives, you open the door to others deciding whatever the heck they want about your life!
NOT A SINGLE QUESTION asked about supporting or opposing the legalization of assisted suicide, unless you know of some hidden questions that weren't released with the others.
But honesty means nothing to Life News, I know.
The poll was about concerns...and many who have concerns still support the legalization. (I'm one example.)
I bet a question that asked,
"Do you believe that disabled persons should be allowed to get assistance legally in doing anything they are unable to do themselves?" would yield a strong YES result.
Yes..that's why there are concerns even when there's support. Anyone would be stupid or crazy not to have concerns. I have concerns about RKBA, but support it. I have concerns about people drinking and driving, but I'm not against either.
It's called sanity. Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean he's insane. But in a rational society, we address concerns. There are many concerns as the law exists, such as people making botched suicide attempts, or having to kill themselves before they become too infirm, rather than waiting and having their remaining time.
In other news unborn babies oppose abortion by overwhelming majorities.
You're exactly right, but you're gonna upset the big-government nanny-state libs here. You can tell them by the way they don't care about individuals or their rights, preferences, or decisions ...they just lump together "lives" in an abstract way and proclaim that they know better than the people themselves. Oh, and if you can't do something for yourself, then you're out of luck, as far as they're concerned.
While I recognize the "obligation because of societal pressure" idea, I'm starting to question even that. We recognize a person's free will even if he's under pressure. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person must buy an iPhone. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person can't make personal decisions.
The pro-life organizations should sponsor an annual “Dr. Harold Shipman Award”, to the biggest medical advocates of euthanasia.
Dr. Harold Shipman was a convicted English serial killer. A doctor by profession, he is among the most prolific serial killers in recorded history with 218 murders being positively ascribed to him, although the actual number is likely much higher.
Shipman died on 13 January 2004, after hanging himself in his cell at Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire.
I’ve read that many of those “assisted” had no input into their so-called “sucide”
That’s what I just said.
I don’t think the State OR the person should have the right to end a life. Of course someone who is committed to suicide is going to do it anyway, especially if they don’t believe in God, so there is no sense legislating it unless you are trying to give the State the power to end OTHER people’s lives. We are close to agreeing except whether the person has the right to end their own life and that is, in the long run, a moot point.
1) we have already done that. It is called the "death penalty" (except here in California where it is the "I will outlive all the jurors, judges and DAs with endless appeals" penalty).
2) False dichotomy. Admitting an individual has the final say on his/her life or end thereof does NOT mean we "give" the State anything. It is the opposite: it REMOVES the State's right to intervene.
We are close to agreeing except whether the person has the right to end their own life and that is, in the long run, a moot point.
In the long run all life and death issues are moot. ;)
Too bad...it, like all our natural rights, is given to us by our Creator.
Rights and freedoms are complementary.
Free speech implies the right not to have to share your political views.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not a mandate to carry a gun.
The Right of Peaceable Assembly is complemented by the freedom from having to attend a government rally.
The Freedom of Worship includes the right to skip church.
Freedom from the requirement of self-incriminating testimony doesn't mean you are forbidden from testifying.
And the right to life includes the right to end that life.
It's not a moot point. Many people figure they can end things when they get bad enough, but fail to realize that by the time they are ready, they aren't able physically. So people are now killing themselves before they want to, just to be sure they don't get trapped by infirmity.
[...] there is no sense legislating it unless you are trying to give the State the power to end OTHER peoples lives.
That's not the only power they want. How about the British, who rescued a guy who'd slit his throat, then hanged him for the crime of attempted suicide. The rope tore the stitches open, so they...oh, nevermind, but it's an illustration of how sick these ghouls are who want to restrict the rights of others.
Documents can be forged and disabled people can end up dead without their consent. That’s more murder.
When you support death for a person who is pressured into it, that negates your claim to support that person's right to choose for themselves.
The Statists love to use straw-man cases. The argument is always that because it is possible that some theoretical one-in-a-million soul might benefit all should come under the heel of some new "beneficent" policy, regardless of the obvious harms which will befall rights and liberties of the 999,999-in-a-million others.
Of course it would, which is why I don't support death for a person who is pressured into it.
But, frankly, it has been my experience that it's FAR more likely for people to be pressured into living, with others chiding them into enduring unspeakable pain for the benefit of those around them.
When you falsely interpret someone's coerced agreement as their own free will, regardless of the fact that they were pressured into it, and you know it was never their own decision, but you lie and say that it was, that negates your claim to support their right to have their real decisions honored. So it's too late to pretend you don't support offing someone who was pressured into it.
Do you assume that when you pressure someone to live, then you’ve subverted their free will?
I point out that we can’t assume that just because someone tries to apply pressure, it doesn’t mean the person didn’t choose willingly. A person can make a decision despite attempts to apply pressure.
If someone is pressured to die they did NOT make the choice willingly. They were coerced, pressured.
verb (used with object)
10.to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:
Example: They pressured him into accepting the contract.
5. A compelling or constraining influence, such as a moral force, on the mind or will: pressure to conform; peer-group pressure.
Doesn't sound like free will to me.
“Assisted” suicide in Europe has probably been done a lot without any indication the patient wants to die. I remember stories about it, but I couldn’t find them.
You’re right. That isn’t free will. Many euthanasia advocates claim their reason for supporting it is because they support free will. It’s rare to find someone who openly promotes euthanasia that clearly subverts free will.
Hell, it was done to Terri Schiavo based on a conversation that a sociopath "recalled" having years after her accident and after the sociopath had moved in with another woman and, most importantly, after Terri won a lot of money.
Of course Terri wasn't suicide, because everyone knows that food and water have long been considered "extraordinary life support."
I’ve read many of those same stories. The people behind those non-voluntary killings will usually claim they were acting in good faith on what they believed their victims would have wanted. Rarely do they openly admit to pressuring their victims to comply.
They don’t realize that it DOES subvert free will when pressure is applied to another’s will. It opens the door to euthanizing anyone too. It’s a slippery slope and “free will” is a lie.
As a matter of fact, Terri’s estranged husband had already testified in court about her pro-life wishes in regards to her own life in the very situation she was in. He testified that he had promised her he would take care of her for the rest of their lives. But that was when he wanted money “for her care and rehabilitation.” Once he had the money, she went from pro-life to pro-choice, and then further to pro-forced-death-by-torture.
Oh, I think they do realize. If they believed it was a person’s free will to die, they wouldn’t feel the need to pressure them.
I agree. That didn’t come out the way I meant it.
If it is legal, and convincing patients to die saves money, expect staff to be trained in high-pressure sales techniques to convince sick people to sign off on euthanasia.
If I remember correctly, Mikey's main complaint when he went to court originally was that he couldn't have sex with Terri; he took care of that problem, Terri got a bunch of money, so his need to keep Terri around vanished.
Well isn’t that special. /s
What a despicable person he is, particularly since he seems to have absolutely no shame.
When you are certain that it’s all about you and others don’t matter, Mikey is what you end up with.
That sounds like the definition of a narcissistic sociopath.
Yes. And fits the DC Pretender too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.