Another cracking article Clare but it is real tragedy to me no such urgent calls to action and lockstep determination from 'dissident groups' and the Christian community with regards to emailing politicians etc on the CONFIRMED (9 MONTHS ago now) human rights abuses in Scottish care homes from March 2020. Articles 2,3,5,8,14 and 19 of the ECHR all but confirmed breached which ultimately calls into questions the real reason for so many excess deaths during lockdown. This it seems it all 'old' news now and meh...when in fact failure to tackle this is the reason we are all here now with ''assisted dying'' (aka lessons learned). I'm sure a new narrative will arrive soon and replace even this and so the cylce repeats.
I have alot to say about your comment, which I largely agree with. I think we find ourselves in the position we do by both design and overwhelm. I'm currently writing about how Midazolam has been forgotten and why I think people have moved on. Like I said, design and overhwhelm. I've been working with some on a small plan to combat the same. It's taken a while and in fact we cannot do anything too public until certain submissions to the UK Convid inquiry are in the public domain. But we have every intention of reigniting debate on this issue. Sadly i don't think we will ever see accountability for the human rights abuses, and in fact other crimes committed during Convid, consisting of but not limited to unlawful DNRs and unlawful application of end of life "treatments". Makes me want to cry or give up, but neither will help in the long run. Just gotta keep talking about it
Yes to the overwhelm, no doubt about it. Let's not forget the UK COVID inquiry module 6 care homes starts at the end of the month. I will be curious to see if the 'alt' media and popular 'freedom' associates will be ignoring it as much as they have the other evidence aka ''whitewash'' i have implored them to help circulate (below) but but no avail. The accountability side failing to transpire lies at the feet of the 'dissidents' though and not the government given the sheer scale of CONFIRMED OFFICIAL evidence admitted and yet no protests, no calls to action, no open letters. I know who that helps. If this continues i don't know exactly what comes after 'COVID' ('assisted dying' being just a part) but it sure won't be pretty.
I have assisted on a large submission for a core participant which has been heartbreaking given the case studies included and the testimony taken. Like I said I doubt it will gain legacy media interest. Some alt media might pick up. We do have a plan to publicise the same after acceptance by Inquiry
Heartbreaking, no doubt. So much has already been revealled at the UK COVID inquiry and our popular 'alt' media and 'freedom' groups and personalities just look the other way. People really need to be asking serious questions of the lot of them as to why they will not amplify so much real evidence that exposes criminality and calls into question the nature of the pandemic itself.
And so it begins the slow lethal expansion: Equality Act 2010: Critics say limiting the bill to terminally ill adults discriminates against others (e.g., chronically ill). Example: A Parkinson’s patient denied access (if the 12-month amendment fails) could sue for unequal treatment, pushing for broader laws, and forcing us all onto that slippery slope."
If this awful bill comes to fruition it will continue to expand eventually gathering all the identified vulnerable members of society into its clutches, why stop at physical chronic conditions? We have easily persuaded patients and their families in very vulnerable positions who are challenged daily by serious life changing conditions, intractable depression, mental illness, congenital diseases, frail elderly, the list goes on. You can sense the insidious nature of this for it will morph from a decision into an expectation as sure as night follows day, it is that predictable.
There are a number of valid points here, particularly on the safeguards and their implementation.
However, as someone suffering from a degenerative terminal illness, my doctors are unable to predict how long I may have to live. I would argue it is virtually impossible for any doctor to certify that someone will die within 6 months with any degree of precision.
At what point does the 6 month clock start running? And if the doctor says 7 months, does the patient have to wait another anguished month before making their wishes known? And then how long will the review process take? Many people would rather risk getting on a plane to Switzerland than deal with all this uncertainty at a time when stress and anxiety are already at their peak.
Public opinion is in favour of the principle of assisted dying. Of course safeguards are necessary, but there is a huge risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Thanks for your input Martin. I am very sorry to hear you are in the health position you are
I think you have answered your own question about what shoildc be done here. My position is that people can do what they want with their bodies, including suicide, but we do not need the government to legislate for it and it is not an NHS "service" to be paid for by the taxpayer. If I found myself in an unfortunate position health wise and wanted to end my life I would indeed take myself to Dignitas or find some other way to achieve my objective, after explaining to my family what I was doing. This bill involves the state meddling in this affair, causes, the tax payer to fund it, and frames it all as choice based, when it's fairly easy to see that there are insufficient safeguards that could prejudice people, particularly the vulnerable and poor, so choice then becomes coercion or duty. I'm not against body autonomy. I'm against state interference and mandates by the back door such as through poverty, masquerading as body autonomy
I think what you are saying is that we should simply de-criminalise the act of helping someone to take their own life, whether the assistance is provided by a medical professional or not. I would agree with that position, since I have never understood the logic of suicide being legally acceptable while assisting someone to do it is not.
Another cracking article Clare but it is real tragedy to me no such urgent calls to action and lockstep determination from 'dissident groups' and the Christian community with regards to emailing politicians etc on the CONFIRMED (9 MONTHS ago now) human rights abuses in Scottish care homes from March 2020. Articles 2,3,5,8,14 and 19 of the ECHR all but confirmed breached which ultimately calls into questions the real reason for so many excess deaths during lockdown. This it seems it all 'old' news now and meh...when in fact failure to tackle this is the reason we are all here now with ''assisted dying'' (aka lessons learned). I'm sure a new narrative will arrive soon and replace even this and so the cylce repeats.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/scottish-covid-19-inquiryclosing
https://substack.com/@xrenee0/note/c-105031911
I have alot to say about your comment, which I largely agree with. I think we find ourselves in the position we do by both design and overwhelm. I'm currently writing about how Midazolam has been forgotten and why I think people have moved on. Like I said, design and overhwhelm. I've been working with some on a small plan to combat the same. It's taken a while and in fact we cannot do anything too public until certain submissions to the UK Convid inquiry are in the public domain. But we have every intention of reigniting debate on this issue. Sadly i don't think we will ever see accountability for the human rights abuses, and in fact other crimes committed during Convid, consisting of but not limited to unlawful DNRs and unlawful application of end of life "treatments". Makes me want to cry or give up, but neither will help in the long run. Just gotta keep talking about it
Yes to the overwhelm, no doubt about it. Let's not forget the UK COVID inquiry module 6 care homes starts at the end of the month. I will be curious to see if the 'alt' media and popular 'freedom' associates will be ignoring it as much as they have the other evidence aka ''whitewash'' i have implored them to help circulate (below) but but no avail. The accountability side failing to transpire lies at the feet of the 'dissidents' though and not the government given the sheer scale of CONFIRMED OFFICIAL evidence admitted and yet no protests, no calls to action, no open letters. I know who that helps. If this continues i don't know exactly what comes after 'COVID' ('assisted dying' being just a part) but it sure won't be pretty.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry-30-oct-2024?utm_source=publication-search
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry-26-nov-2024-260?utm_source=publication-search
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry-28-oct-2024-8d6?utm_source=publication-search
I have assisted on a large submission for a core participant which has been heartbreaking given the case studies included and the testimony taken. Like I said I doubt it will gain legacy media interest. Some alt media might pick up. We do have a plan to publicise the same after acceptance by Inquiry
Heartbreaking, no doubt. So much has already been revealled at the UK COVID inquiry and our popular 'alt' media and 'freedom' groups and personalities just look the other way. People really need to be asking serious questions of the lot of them as to why they will not amplify so much real evidence that exposes criminality and calls into question the nature of the pandemic itself.
https://biologyphenom.substack.com/p/newuk-covid-19-inquiry-26-nov-2024-d6b?utm_source=publication-search
And so it begins the slow lethal expansion: Equality Act 2010: Critics say limiting the bill to terminally ill adults discriminates against others (e.g., chronically ill). Example: A Parkinson’s patient denied access (if the 12-month amendment fails) could sue for unequal treatment, pushing for broader laws, and forcing us all onto that slippery slope."
If this awful bill comes to fruition it will continue to expand eventually gathering all the identified vulnerable members of society into its clutches, why stop at physical chronic conditions? We have easily persuaded patients and their families in very vulnerable positions who are challenged daily by serious life changing conditions, intractable depression, mental illness, congenital diseases, frail elderly, the list goes on. You can sense the insidious nature of this for it will morph from a decision into an expectation as sure as night follows day, it is that predictable.
There are a number of valid points here, particularly on the safeguards and their implementation.
However, as someone suffering from a degenerative terminal illness, my doctors are unable to predict how long I may have to live. I would argue it is virtually impossible for any doctor to certify that someone will die within 6 months with any degree of precision.
At what point does the 6 month clock start running? And if the doctor says 7 months, does the patient have to wait another anguished month before making their wishes known? And then how long will the review process take? Many people would rather risk getting on a plane to Switzerland than deal with all this uncertainty at a time when stress and anxiety are already at their peak.
Public opinion is in favour of the principle of assisted dying. Of course safeguards are necessary, but there is a huge risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Thanks for your input Martin. I am very sorry to hear you are in the health position you are
I think you have answered your own question about what shoildc be done here. My position is that people can do what they want with their bodies, including suicide, but we do not need the government to legislate for it and it is not an NHS "service" to be paid for by the taxpayer. If I found myself in an unfortunate position health wise and wanted to end my life I would indeed take myself to Dignitas or find some other way to achieve my objective, after explaining to my family what I was doing. This bill involves the state meddling in this affair, causes, the tax payer to fund it, and frames it all as choice based, when it's fairly easy to see that there are insufficient safeguards that could prejudice people, particularly the vulnerable and poor, so choice then becomes coercion or duty. I'm not against body autonomy. I'm against state interference and mandates by the back door such as through poverty, masquerading as body autonomy
I think what you are saying is that we should simply de-criminalise the act of helping someone to take their own life, whether the assistance is provided by a medical professional or not. I would agree with that position, since I have never understood the logic of suicide being legally acceptable while assisting someone to do it is not.