December 14, 2004
ON KILLING INCONVENIENT PEOPLE
Labour in revolt against 'living wills' law (Andrew Sparrow, the Telegraph, December 14th, 2004)
Tony Blair faces a significant revolt in the Commons today over a Bill that many MPs believe will lead to the introduction of euthanasia.Nearly 40 Labour backbenchers have signed a Commons motion condemning the Mental Capacity Bill, which the Government is using to enshrine in law the concept of a "living will".
Many of those MPs are expected to back an all-party amendment tabled by Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, ensuring that the new law could not be used to justify a doctor doing anything that would intentionally cause the death of a patient.[...]
The Bill would allow people to make binding decisions while they still had good health, including granting power of attorney to a third party who would be able to make sure their wishes were fulfilled.
Mr Duncan Smith said critics of the Bill were particularly worried about people saying they would not want medical treatment if they were terminally ill, not realising that this could result in the withdrawal of food and water.
"That would lead to them being starved or dehydrated to death. But that would not be what they thought they were asking for."
The campaigners also believe strongly that people who sign a "living will" are likely to change their mind if they become incapacitated.
Claire Curtis-Thomas, the Labour MP, one of the supporters of the rebel amendment, told the Commons during the Bill's second reading that her mother, after suffering a stroke, said she wanted to be allowed to die if it happened again.
But after suffering a second stroke that left her severely incapacitated, she signalled to her daughter that she wanted to live and survived for another five years.
As with abortion, the “right to die” cause is being sold by playing on the poignancy and ambiguity of extreme cases. As with abortion, it will eventually result in large numbers of unjustifiable killings–otherwise known as murders.
Posted by Peter Burnet at December 14, 2004 6:54 AMCan't allow citizens to make these decisions by themselves, along with their families, physicians and spiritual advisors, the nanny state and the Church have to do it. After all, all their other decisions have been so fabulous.
Posted by: Bart at December 14, 2004 10:24 AMBart-- Surely you don't believe that in a country such as the UK, when the Nanny State is already paying for the health care in the first place, that it will be more concerned with individual lives than the people themselves? When lives that "aren't really worth it" or "will probably die anyway" are costing so much per day that they live on?
Surely policies should also be judged by their actual effects. Looking at the Netherlands, it's apparent from the data there that much of what is called euthanasia is against the will of the patients, but when the State thinks it's time to go.
The end result of euthansia is to put power into the hands of the bureaucrats and the State, who happily end lives to save money, since they pay for the health care.
Posted by: John Thacker at December 14, 2004 11:35 AMAlso, surely most of us believe that it is a worse crime to end someone's life against their will, than to drag someone else's life out longer against their will. Since we must err, we should error on the side of preventing murder.
Only someone who fails to be realistic, but instead lives in some idealistic dreamworld, can pretend that errors will not happen with either policy.
Posted by: John Thacker at December 14, 2004 11:38 AMBart: Without commenting at all on English law, this does not seem to be about allowing people to choose their own medical care, but rather about who or what to turn to when they can't choose their own care. Sure, they can write it down and we can all say that, having made their bed, they should lie on it. But if in fact there is evidence that, when it comes to it, many people change their mind, why shouldn't we accommodate that evidence?
Posted by: David Cohen at December 14, 2004 1:15 PM1) John T.: Bureaucrats and the state pay for nothing: it's not their money.
If we want to keep the libertines and the pro-death lobby happy, just make sure the law requires that "living wills" explicitly contain a plain-language provision on nutrition and hydration before they could be relied upon to allow killing the weak by withholding these things. It would be sort of like requiring an ultra-sound as part of abortion counselling. These free-thinkers are all for truth and enlightenment, no?
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 14, 2004 1:52 PMLou-- You know that, and I know that, but the state and the bureaucrats don't always see it that way, sadly.
Posted by: John Thacker at December 14, 2004 3:48 PM