Comments: follow-up on right to kill old people

Revisionism from the Bishop of Durham:

_part of a larger, albeit unorganised, secularising or atheist agenda - pressing in this direction. Such an agenda doesn't need protest marches. It has powerful politicians and journalists presenting the case._

Ah, pressing in this direction. Well, sort of, are they? What case are they presenting?

_Secondly, I said “surplus” people. It might well be said that they are not “surplus”, but simply “suffering”. Fair point..._

Fair point. Before engaging mouth, engage sufficient brain.

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 4 April 2008 at 11:23pm BST

There is a little book, I believe of the comic strip kind, called A 100 Uses of a Dead Cat.

I think it is high time someone came up with The 100 Uses of a Surplus Bishop.

Maybe even someone could produce the 100 Uses of Surplus Pseudo-Intellectuals claiming to be oooh, so independent and “objective” ; = )

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 5 April 2008 at 7:36am BST

We are talking about nothing less than making it OK to kill people in certain (rather murky) circumstances. +Tom rightly points out that in places where euthanasia has been allowed, what was initially highly limited is gradually being expanded to allow for more possible ways of ending lives: a perfect example of the slippery slope if there ever was one.

Indeed, people should engage their brains, but the "pseudo-intellectual" attacks (your words, not mine) on +Tom for wanting to protect lives while also offering *real* comfort to those in pain -- not just convenient short-cuts -- are downright repulsive.

What I find most remarkable is that the polemics of +Tom are sharply criticized -- and the critics use even lower-grade polemics to do it. Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by Walsingham at Monday, 7 April 2008 at 3:10pm BST

Walsingham, show me the evidence that +Tom is right and that there is a slippery slope. The lastest evidence from the Netherlands and Oregon State in the US is that there isn't one. It's not a murky moral world unless you live in the shadows like +Tom.

Posted by Greywizard at Tuesday, 8 April 2008 at 12:49pm BST

For one thing, in the Netherlands it was promised over and over again that children under 12 would not and would never be able to participate in so-called "assisted suicide". How odd, then, that since the 2002 change in the law to permit euthanasia in the Netherlands, there have been several documented cases of children being euthanized (see, with no prosecutions, and the so-called Groningen protocol instituted for determining which cases are permissible. Under that protocol, the patient -- the child -- is not even asked their opinion, but is simply killed on the advice of physicians and consent of parents, neither of whom necessarily have the child's best interests at heart.

There's your slippery slope staring you in the face.

Posted by Walsingham at Wednesday, 9 April 2008 at 9:50pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.