Apparently PM Brown was less than sincere ...
Gerald Warner, a staunchly pro-life columnist for the Telegraph, is not among those who are convinced by Brown’s rhetoric in praise of palliative care and a “good death.” Warner called the guidelines “weasel-worded” and said that the facts contradict Starmer and Brown’s warm assurances.
They do indeed override Parliament and change the law, Warner said, “by radically hobbling its implementation.” Warner cited suicide-campaigner Debbie Purdie’s positive response as evidence.
“Changing the application of assisted suicide law to focus on the supposed ‘motivation’ of the perpetrator dilutes its efficacy in a way that would not be countenanced in respect of other statutory enactments.”
“Britain,” Warner wrote, “is governed by statute, not by guidelines. The will of Parliament, reaffirmed very recently, is to maintain the status quo. So, who empowered Mr. Starmer to subvert it on his own initiative? The answer is not far to seek: Gordon Brown.”
Brown’s column, he said, is written in “typical snake-oil salesman fashion.” Its purpose, he said, was to do nothing more than promote his putative pro-life credentials on the eve of a general election.
“The real purpose was to nod through a change in the law without consulting Parliament, while repudiating all responsibility,” Warner concluded.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said on Thursday, “It is not credible for Keir Starmer to claim that he has not relaxed prosecuting policy on assisted suicide. The new policy effectively decriminalises assisted suicide in a wide range of circumstances.”
English Catholic Bishops Support What Pro-Life Groups Oppose
Anglican Bishop Supports Life
A very thoughtful and timely article in the Telegraph by PM Gordon Brown :
...The law – together with the values and standards of our caring professions – supports good care, including palliative care for the most difficult of conditions; and also protects the most vulnerable in our society. For let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about mortality.
The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded. And the inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions – if they were in a position to end life – would be to lose something very precious. For when I think of the kind of care Sarah and I saw in our local hospice, where we worked as volunteers, I know in my heart that there is such a thing as a good death.
And I believe it is our duty as a society to provide the skilled and loving care that makes it possible; and to use the laws we have well, rather than rush to change them.
In Canada, a Quebec MP has proposed a law to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, BILL C-384.
Meanwhile in 'la belle provence' DOCTORS OF QUEBEC feel that to KILL patients is appropriate care:
In fact, the difficulty that we are all coming up against is not related to possible disagreements. On the contrary, it arises mainly from the fact that legislation (which has nothing to do with treatment) can suddenly encroach on the decision making process. In effect, there are certain exceptional situations — uncontrollable pain or interminable suffering, for example — in which euthanasia could be considered to be a final step required to assure the provision of quality care. Subsequent to a careful and thorough decision making process involving all parties concerned, some treatments could be deemed appropriate even if they contravene certain legal stipulations. This could explain the fact that certain practices transpire despite being highly controversial.
Am I wrong? Are the 'doctors' saying that the law is an impediment to them using death as 'health care'? Eventhough they admit that they are already doing so?
(Get a grip on reality, boys. The law is in place to PREVENT you from making those decisions, which you admit you are currently doing. That's the purpose of the law. To prevent you from using death INSTEAD of care. Get it? )
When people are polled about whether or not they approve of assisted suicide and euthanasia, are they picturing their own miserable deaths and fearing to suffer? Are gov'ts around the world using this fear to their own economic advantage ? Is this being discussed at all because people have lost the ability to discern the value of even their own lives? Does the entire world have a death wish?
Are we really that hopeless and miserable?
“The true answer cannot be putting someone to death, however 'kindly,' but to bear witness to the love that helps us to face pain and agony in a human way. We are certain: No tear, whether it be of those who suffer or those who stand by them, goes unnoticed before God.” (Pope Benedict XVI)
Eauthanasia Prevention Coalition
"Medical Science Under DIctatorship"
"Cutting Costs, Costing Lives"