Promoting the Culture of Death: Children being taught how to die

[Feuer Frei!]

In the past few weeks we have been assailed by a relentless stream of stories about people wanting to be helped to die. First, we learned that the BBC plans to screen a documentary this summer in which novelist and Alzheimer’s sufferer Terry Pratchett advocates assisted suicide.
The programme features footage of a man with motor neurone disease travelling to the Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas and being shown dying on screen.
Hard on the heels of this snuff movie came the sickening news that a video featuring notorious assisted suicide campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, in which he demonstrates how to help people kill themselves, is being shown to schoolchildren in British classrooms.
Nitschke, nicknamed ‘Dr Death’ — whose DIY suicide manual provides instructions on how to kill yourself with plastic bags, carbon monoxide, cyanide, morphine and other poisons — is shown in the film demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections and giving workshops on his ghastly trade.
And now the Star Trek actor Sir Patrick Stewart, who apart from being diagnosed with coronary heart disease five years ago is a healthy 70-year-old, suddenly announces his wish to be allowed an assisted death.
This would all seem to add up to an intensification of the campaign to make it legal for people to be helped to kill themselves.

This autumn, the Commission on Assisted Dying, led by Lord Falconer, is expected to deliver its recommendations to MPs over a change in the law.

All this propaganda — for that’s what it is — seems to be part of a drive to soften up public opinion so that any recommendation made by this commission to make assisted suicide legal will be accepted.
And there’s more than a whiff of brazen stunts to that end.

For example, Michael Irwin, a euthanasia campaigner and former GP who travelled to Dignitas last month with pensioner Nan Maitland — who ended her life there merely because of arthritis pain — has called for his own arrest. He said he was prepared to face prosecution, and hoped that this might help to change the law oneuthanasia.

Of course, it is impossible not to sympathise with individuals who seek to end their own lives in this way. We can all identify with the terror of being trapped inside a useless body, of losing control, of the pain and indignity of a horrible terminal disease. If it were simply a case ofhaving the right to die, however, the issuewould be pretty simple. After all, suicide is legal. But assisted suicide is deeply problematic.

It opens up the route to intolerable abuse of deeply vulnerable people, who may be put under pressure by greedy or uncaring relatives to end their lives. Or the person in question may simply not wish to ‘be a burden’ on their loved ones.

It sends society down a slippery slope, where assisted suicide starts off for those suffering unbearable pain or distress through illness and rapidly extends to people wanting to die even though they are not ill at all.
Even more horrifying, those whose minds are affected by illness will be making a choice to be killed which may not be rational at all. Indeed, their wish to die may be the result of feelings which may change — if given the chance.

For all these reasons, despite years of campaigning by the euthanasia lobby group Dignity in Dying, of which Sir Patrick Stewart is a patron (and which cynically renamed itself from the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society to spin away the fact that it is actually in the killing game), Parliament has refused to change the law to permit either euthanasia or assisted suicide.

So the campaign is being ratcheted up. And, of course, people are instinctively sympathetic to these individual stories ofdespair.

But there’s a grim downside and extreme danger, both for individuals and society, from any such change in the law.

Consider, for example, the idyllic picture that Dr Irwin presents of the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, describing how the night before Nan Maitland ended her life there, they stayed at a ‘wonderful five-star hotel’ and ‘had a three-hour dinner with a nice Chablis’.

Yet last year at Trotte Bay, on the shores of Lake Zurich, divers uncovered a huge number of urns at the bottom of the lake, containing human remains — reportedly from the incinerators at Dignitas.
A former nurse at the place, Soraya Wernli, has described how the urns were piled up near the wine collection in the cellar of the home near Lake Zurich of clinic owner Ludwig Minelli. She claims he then prised off all the nameplates, pushed the lids off and dumped the urns in the lake.

Dignitas has made Minelli a millionaire, even though profiting from suicide is against Swiss law. In short, Dignitas is simply a money-spinning death factory.

The question is why, given the deeply exploitative, dangerous and repellent aspects of assisted suicide, so many great and good folk — such as Lord Falconer — are so gung-ho in support of it. (Indeed, given this fact, Lord Falconer’s ‘independent’ commission is merely yet another propaganda stunt.)
Despite the sympathy and respect due to Sir Terry Pratchett for his heroic attitude towards his disease, the BBC documentary appears to be ghoulishly one-sided. The idea of the BBC making a programme against assisted suicide is pretty well unthinkable.

And what on earth are teachers thinking of in exposing schoolchildren to Philip Nitschke, who in any normal moral universe would be considered utterly beyond the pale?

For heaven’s sake, even Dignity in Dying has condemned him and criticised the use of such a film in schools.

The answer is that assisted dying is seen as an extreme version of freedom of choice.

And that is the territory of the Left — those who believe human beings should be floating free in a universe of self-interest, and who accordingly want to dislocate everyone from every tie to history, culture, tradition and, above all, religion.

The end of that road is a society of brutal utilitarianism in which, having first got ridof God, societies start getting rid ofpeople.

If human remains are treated as garbage to be dumped in a lake, it’s not long before live human beings are treated as garbage, too. If there is no intrinsic respect for human life, it’s not long before other people’s lives are treated with similar contempt.

The ‘right to die’ has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push — or would you rush forward to stop him?

The gathering pressure to adopt the former course says something terrible about our society. It says we are turning into a culture of death.

We must resist it and reaffirm life, true compassion and our common humanity.


SOURCE

[CCIP]

And that is the territory of the Left - those who believe human beings should be floating free in a universe of self-interest, and who accordingly want to dislocate everyone from every tie to history, culture, tradition and, above all, religion.

Okay.

I had some hope this wasn't merely another poorly veiled politico-religious rant against that evil godless "Left" up to this point

[Bakkels]

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer. Mind you, that is not directed at you Feuer Frei, but at this piece of text that I can't even call an article. This is just one big propaganda rant. It contains some analogies and statements that I personally find distasteful and sickening.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

And now the Star Trek actor Sir Patrick Stewart, who apart from being diagnosed with coronary heart disease five years ago is a healthy 70-year-old, suddenly announces his wish to be allowed an assisted death.
This would all seem to add up to an intensification of the campaign to make it legal for people to be helped to kill themselves.

If Jean Luc Picard says it the right thing to do; then its the right thing to do.

[Platapus]

Awesome! I am glad that assisted suicide is being discussed. It should be an option for people in specific circumstances.

Of course it needs to be discussed logically which this article didn't.

But, outside this article, I am glad there is discussion about it.

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is one hell of a funny website.
It even has the soccer player who claims he is the messiah and says everyone must were turquiose
Feuer, do you expect anyone to take anything on there seriously?

Soccer players who are Messiahs?
Haven't seen that one on there.
In respect to the article posted, i posted it as a discussion point.
The source maybe a little alternative, for want of a better word, granted.
However, questions are being asked. Some of the content of the article is i might add a little distasteful and i was slow to pick up on it, however the premise is still the same: posing the question
Pro or anti?
I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:

Hard on the heels of this s...f movie came the sickening news that a video featuring notorious assisted suicide campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, in which he demonstrates how to help people kill themselves, is being shown to schoolchildren in British classrooms.

Not really appropriate.

Nitschke, nicknamed ---8216;Dr Death---8217; ---8212; whose DIY suicide manual provides instructions on how to kill yourself with plastic bags, carbon monoxide, cyanide, morphine and other poisons ---8212; is shown in the film demonstrating his machine that delivers lethal injections and giving workshops on his ghastly trade.

Again, not appropriate.

Of course, it is impossible not to sympathise with individuals who seek to end their own lives in this way. We can all identify with the terror of being trapped inside a useless body, of losing control, of the pain and indignity of a horrible terminal disease. If it were simply a case of having the right to die, however, the issuewould be pretty simple. After all, suicide is legal. But assisted suicide is deeply problematic.

I agree there, nothing wrong with this statement.

And what on earth are teachers thinking of in exposing schoolchildren to Philip Nitschke, who in any normal moral universe would be considered utterly beyond the pale?

Indeed, what are they thinking?

The ---8216;right to die---8217; has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push ---8212; or would you rush forward to stop him?

Good analogy, no?

We must resist it and reaffirm life, true compassion and our common humanity.

Hear hear!
It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?
It's all about the wording it seems, because there are countless online articles, addressing exactly the same topic and the same Dr Death, P Nitshkie and his so-called methods.
And here is the link to the story of school kids, 14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...year-olds.html

Why the heck are we advocating this?

I thought that it did make some relevant points, none moreso than:

None moreso than the fact that this "being taught to children" actually means it is included as one small item in one small module of on particular subject which those students have chosen to specialise in.
So it is a small film clip giving a pro euthenasia point in a film about the different stances on euthenasia which is shown to those students who chose to take a course on philosophy as part of their leaving exams.
Would you be happier if an education in philosophy only contained views from one angle?

Can you see the problem yet?
You are taking your starting position from a loony site which based its article on a daily mail article.
the daily mail would be bad enough but a crazy rehash of a daily mail scare story is really beyond any semblance of credibility.

14 year-olds no less, being shown the Suicide film by our very own P Nitschke:

Really?
At what point of the academic cycle is this particular module of the philosophy course given to pupils who have chosen that subject?

Why the heck are we advocating this?

Why the heck are you getting annoyed over an issue that is pure panic mongering sensationalism?

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Good analogy, no?

No. It's a childish, simplified comparison, it's saying that helping someone end their life who isn't able to do that himself is the same as killing a handicapped person you never met before.
If someone were to kill himself like that, you try to stop him. Because you don't know their reasons and their story. If someone willingly chooses to end their life, and isn't able to do so himself, a doctor should help him with that.
If you live in a country where the law makes this impossible, than it's not surprising that there will be organizations that, by giving instructions to people on how to end their lives, attempt to give them their right on the choice of life or death back. imo that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia. Including non-voluntary euthanasia.

Yes, because after all, we're all just waiting for killing someone to become legal! That just makes absolutely no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?

Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously.

Of course there are problems arising with euthanasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow it at all. For example, to avoid people taking advantage of others, you could only allow (assisted) euthanasia if the person in question wrote up a will before falling ill. And there are a lot of these issues that should be well thought about by lawmakers. But they should be thought about from an objective stance, leaving religion completely out of the matter.