Euthanasia

[Lady Die 63]

I can think of a few candidates for involuntary euthanasia.......mentioning no Thatchers........

And how about some Blairs.

[Josco 49]

I can think of a few candidates for involuntary euthanasia.......mentioning no Thatchers........

And how about some Blairs.

And Browns.

[Star Crossed 33]

I can think of a few candidates for involuntary euthanasia.......mentioning no Thatchers........

And how about some Blairs.

And Browns.

Give me a "B"!

Give me a "U"!

Give me an "S"!

Give me an "H"!

 

and his feckless offspring.

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

call me a naive American living in England, but what exactly is so bad about Tony Blair? OK, Iraq's been a mess, but he was just trying to be a good buddy to the US, got some dodgy info (does anyone actually believe the UK would have gone ahead with the invasion if Blair knew there were no WMD's in Iraq? Saddam did have them at one point, did use them on the Kurds, and played the shell game with the UN for 12 years until they gave up looking), and there might eventually be a good result there in say 10 years time. And what's wrong with Brown? One of the best economies in Europe, low infaltion and unemployment, wisely hedging his bets on the Euro, gave interest rate control to the Bank of England, can't be blamed for much else.

 

Given some of the atrocious leaders out there, starting with Bush, I think Britain should feel pretty good about Blair, and looking forward to Brown. Or would we rather have Howard/Duncan-Smith/Clarke or any of that crowd? Schroeder? Chirac? Berlusconi? No thanks.

[Cerberus 304]

Well we're going slightly off topic here, but it seems to me that there are people on here (and it's not confined to the UK, I'm sure) who just like to blame the Government for every little thing that goes wrong in their lives. I expect they were just the same when the other lot were in power. With regard to Iraq, it's funny, isn't it, we're constantly being told that "everybody" is opposed to the Iraq war, and yet Bush and Blair both got re-elected. Likewise, in London, "everybody" is against the congestion charge, yet Ken Livingstone was returned by a comfortable margin, despite a vitriolic anti-campaign (lasting at least 20 years) by the London Evening Standard.

 

Just pressure groups claiming to speak for the majority despite having been no mandate to do so.

 

End of (quiet) rant.

[Dr Strangelove 14]

call me a naive American living in England, but what exactly is so bad about Tony Blair? OK, Iraq's been a mess, but he was just trying to be a good buddy to the US, got some dodgy info (does anyone actually believe the UK would have gone ahead with the invasion if Blair knew there were no WMD's in Iraq?

I think the problem is that it appears to be a classic "Causa Belli". The U.S. decided it wanted to invade Iraq and came up with the reason later.

 

And yes I do believe that Blair knew Iraq had no WMD.

[Star Crossed 33]

And to get back on topic...

 

I read this thread last night. I've always been interested in euthanasia in it's various forms. I'm sure many of us have known close friends or relatives who have reached that point in their life where they feel that there should be an easier way out which leaves nobody with the burden of responsibility.

 

Then... about half an hour ago I watched a random episode of "Diagnosis Murder" (cheap american medical detective drama starring dick van dyke et al); the plot centred on a doctor who was involved in assisted suicide. The basics of both sides of the euthanasia argument were made clear, the conclusion (whether said doctor was guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter) was left open.

 

Then... i just saw this on the news about 3 minutes ago!

 

Is it "international euthanasia week"? It's good to talk...

[Lady Die 63]

Then... i just saw this on the news about 3 minutes ago!

That's what prompted me to raise the topic.

[VileBody 11]

call me a naive American living in England, but what exactly is so bad about Tony Blair?  OK, Iraq's been a mess, but he was just trying to be a good buddy to the US, got some dodgy info (does anyone actually believe the UK would have gone ahead with the invasion if Blair knew there were no WMD's in Iraq?

I think the problem is that it appears to be a classic "Causa Belli". The U.S. decided it wanted to invade Iraq and came up with the reason later.

 

And yes I do believe that Blair knew Iraq had no WMD.

Apologies but am going to go off-topic again because I was just thinking about the war last night watching some of Blair's speech. I think the problem with Blair is that he is actually capable of complete self-delusion and has great difficulty with any self-perception. You'd have to be a shrink to work out why he does it - I suspect it's because he's not actually very good at anything, other than a certain ingratiating charm. One could point to his very ordinary career at the Bar and subsequent decision to go into politics, presumably at the prompting of his Head of Chambers (and later Lord Chancellor) Derry Irving.

 

You then note that Blair has changed his mind on virtually every topic from unilateralism to state ownership and gone with whatever tide is necessary to stay in power. Hence the utter dependence on a gang of unscrupulous propagandists to "spin" the truth for the press. I think Blair is effectviely blind to this and genuinely convinces himself that he believes whatever he says or is told to say.

 

Domestically this has simply led to doing very litttle other than implementing a lot of cluttering regulation. This has restricted growth a bit but given lots of opportunity to be seen to be "doing something". Unemployment has been kept down by shoving the dismal products of state education into non-degrees and then soaking them up into an ever expanding (and Labour-voting) bureacracy.

 

At some point this pyramid-scheme approach to running the country will come unstuck when nobody can be bothered actually to produce anything any more, but Blair will be off on his multi-millions lecture tour by then.

 

Iraq is, of course, different, but the question of self-delusion is the same. Having achieved some success by intervention in Sierra Leone or Kosovo - where it is virtually impossible to see any national interest being served - and having convinced himself that turning the IRA into a sort of "Mafia-in-government" and getting Ulster out of the papers was the same as bringing "peace", I believe he convinced himself that removing Saddam was some sort of moral duty which, with the US, he could fufill.

 

All of this was helped by a lot of nodding and grinning with Bush who made him feel respected and sincere in a way that no one did in the UK. God only knows what combination of neo-con assumptions, huckstering and personal pique went into Bush's decision to take out Saddam, but Blair was easy to flatter and cajole into stepping up alongside.

 

Thereafter the spin-machine in the UK was activated to deliver the new policy and all facts were shuffled to fit the WMD line - which was, of course, the only one which most British people would swallow as an acceptable causa belli. And then only in the general (and fairly plausible) context of Saddam supplying something unpleasant to some Islamic fundamentalists. The problem Blair has faced since the start was that he never thought he could get popular support for his moral crusade, so, as in so many other areas, just looked the other way while his staff told a pack of lies to get it accomplished.

 

Interestingly, the US has always been a lot more vague about why it went to war other than a general part of the "War on Terrrr". I think the plan in response to 9/11 was basically to pick the most objectionable Arab countries (Taliban Afghanistan and Iraq) and give them the most almighty smack possible. This would demonstrate that Clintonian appeasement was over and the US wasn't going to put up with any more S**t from anyone in the region, whether it was a government or a bunch of stone age crazies in caves.

 

Not attractive but at least consistent with national self-interest - in the short term it would protect the oil flow and the longer term might lead to emergence of stable Islamic democracies on the lines of Turkey. We will have to wait for some time I think to see whether it works.

 

As regards Blair, however, and to bring this over-long and off-point meandering to a conclusion, I would quote T.S Eliott

 

"The last temptation is the greatest treason:

To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

 

I'll get me coat...

[Josco 49]

May be off topic, but it is right on the money.

[Star Crossed 33]

Well worth going off-topic for that. Lucid, well-founded and eloquently delivered.

 

I tip my hat, VB.

[Lady Die 63]

Well worth going off-topic for that. Lucid, well-founded and eloquently delivered.

 

I tip my hat, VB.

Absolutely. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Now about this euthanasia question. I think euthanasing crap politicians is perfectly acceptable, regardless of their state of health.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

I think euthanasing crap politicians is perfectly acceptable, regardless of their state of health.

That wouldn't leave many live ones. Not that that's a Bad Thing...

 

regards,

Hein

[VileBody 11]

I thought Holland had already started with your Nazi pillow-biter....

[Sir Creep 7,070]

California about as liberal as it gets here across the pond, and yet we have THIS bastion of good Olde Puritanism handed down as legal precedent. Thank God for Oregon. Fuck any govt or anyone at all that thinks they have a right to control my end-of-life matters.

SirC

http://www.inquisitr.com/2285318/christy-odonnell-california-judge-dismisses-terminally-ill-single-mothers-her-right-to-die-lawsuit/

[Sir Creep 7,070]

I hope that wasn't off topic but I fear it was. This looks to be about state execution vs right to die. Maybe Political Rant was better place but I'm not Reposting. I searched assisted suicide and this looked the only fit.

SC

[Sir Creep 7,070]

This week, Gov. Jerry Brown settled one of the most contentious ethical, medical and legal issues of recent decades, deciding that Californians with terminal illness may seek a doctor's help to die on their own terms.

The controversial new law raises both complex and practical questions. The language of the measure, as well as experiences with Oregon's similar Death With Dignity Act, provides some insight into how the law will work in the Golden State. Here is a look at some of the answers.

 

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_28929640/californias-new-end-life-law-questions-and-answers

[Sir Creep 7,070]

Canada's parliament has passed a contentious bill to allow medically-assisted death for terminally ill people.

The law was put forward after the Supreme Court struck down a ban on doctors helping the incurably sick to die.

The move makes Canada one of the few countries where doctors can legally help sick people die.

SC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36566214