Monday, November 20, 2006
Falconer's fingers of death
The Lord Chancellor is reported here in the Daily Mail on Saturday, taking a tough line not against criminals, but against doctors, who instead of singing from the "Brave New World" hymn sheet insist on clinging to outdated notions such as the sanctity of human life and other such nonsense.
Anyway the matter is so serious that "draconian measures" are necessary and doctors, nurses and social workers (usually the pets of ZaNuLabour) will face jail or, alternatively, big compensation claims if they fail to enforce so called "living wills".
Of course these situations are difficult, but if someone isn't brain dead then as a society we should be on the side of caution. Clearly different arguments apply depending on the age of the person, but here were talking about principles and it should never be that a liability arises in law for failing to take action that would lead to a death.
It must be noted that what we're talking about is the withdrawal of food and water in other words these people die from starvation and dehydration, getting progressively weaker. It's a slow lingering death.
I'm no fan of Falconer, and his futile efforts to abolish his own office would have been laughable, had they not demonstrated that the head of our judiciary is a nincompoop. Falconer clearly wants to turn the law on its head in a most ridiculous fashion, and of course he has no overriding legal principles to replace the ones he's abolished.
The idea that a doctor could go to prison for assault for failing to abide by a "living will" is absurd, where would be the intention to cause harm? The doctor is merely intending to save life, the important intention is missing.
The guidelines neatly absolve the doctor who makes a mistake, provided they err on the side of killing: "The new guidelines make clear that doctors who obey living wills and allow their patients to die will not be faced with prosecution even if it turns out that the living will was not valid or did not exist." That's handy isn't it, draconian measures for preserving life, nothing for killing the patient (which would really be murder especially if no "living will" ever existed).
Strangely, no liability will attach to an attempted murderer, so if say A leaves me £1,000,000.00p in his will, B makes an attempt is made on A's life and fails, 2 years later A changes his will, I can't sue B for failing to get the million. In the case of the doctor though they'll be liable, but which is far worse, the attempted murderer or the doctor?
It will come as no surprise I'm sure that there is no provision for the patient who changes their mind and might wish to cancel a "living will"; also lacking is provision for the patient who might wish to be resuscitated no matter what. That these two elements are missing, show us that it's not about personal choice, but about killing people off who might become a burden to the state, (that they might have contributed all their lives paying national insurance is irrelevant).
Labour clearly regard people as the property of the state and once they are of no use they are to be "allowed to die" by starvation (which is also ironic because in the past I've said that the "right to die from starvation" is the only true universal right) once dead their role can be undertaken by a new worker as we march onwards, victorious towards the new socialist future.
The closer they come to the end, the more Nazi like NuLabour become.
Anyway the matter is so serious that "draconian measures" are necessary and doctors, nurses and social workers (usually the pets of ZaNuLabour) will face jail or, alternatively, big compensation claims if they fail to enforce so called "living wills".
Of course these situations are difficult, but if someone isn't brain dead then as a society we should be on the side of caution. Clearly different arguments apply depending on the age of the person, but here were talking about principles and it should never be that a liability arises in law for failing to take action that would lead to a death.
It must be noted that what we're talking about is the withdrawal of food and water in other words these people die from starvation and dehydration, getting progressively weaker. It's a slow lingering death.
I'm no fan of Falconer, and his futile efforts to abolish his own office would have been laughable, had they not demonstrated that the head of our judiciary is a nincompoop. Falconer clearly wants to turn the law on its head in a most ridiculous fashion, and of course he has no overriding legal principles to replace the ones he's abolished.
The idea that a doctor could go to prison for assault for failing to abide by a "living will" is absurd, where would be the intention to cause harm? The doctor is merely intending to save life, the important intention is missing.
The guidelines neatly absolve the doctor who makes a mistake, provided they err on the side of killing: "The new guidelines make clear that doctors who obey living wills and allow their patients to die will not be faced with prosecution even if it turns out that the living will was not valid or did not exist." That's handy isn't it, draconian measures for preserving life, nothing for killing the patient (which would really be murder especially if no "living will" ever existed).
Strangely, no liability will attach to an attempted murderer, so if say A leaves me £1,000,000.00p in his will, B makes an attempt is made on A's life and fails, 2 years later A changes his will, I can't sue B for failing to get the million. In the case of the doctor though they'll be liable, but which is far worse, the attempted murderer or the doctor?
It will come as no surprise I'm sure that there is no provision for the patient who changes their mind and might wish to cancel a "living will"; also lacking is provision for the patient who might wish to be resuscitated no matter what. That these two elements are missing, show us that it's not about personal choice, but about killing people off who might become a burden to the state, (that they might have contributed all their lives paying national insurance is irrelevant).
Labour clearly regard people as the property of the state and once they are of no use they are to be "allowed to die" by starvation (which is also ironic because in the past I've said that the "right to die from starvation" is the only true universal right) once dead their role can be undertaken by a new worker as we march onwards, victorious towards the new socialist future.
The closer they come to the end, the more Nazi like NuLabour become.
Tags: euthanasia, Lord Falconer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Pro Life
