Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

The opposition to offering the right to die to those in intolerable pain right now is led by... ?

I'm not sure that this is a fair characterisation of what the debate is about or who is against the Bill you are presumably referring to - but, then, maybe it wasn't meant to be?

the Bill isn't just about the right to die for those in intolerable pain - it's much bigger than that. In countries where similar laws have already passed there is (I believe) research to suggest that intolerable pain makes up only a small percentage of those who opt for assisted dying in some form...

personally I swing from yes to no to yes to no to maybe on the issue because I think it is very complex. I worry about lots of possible unintended consequences such as pressure on the elderly not to be a "burden" and the devaluing of disabled people...

on the other hand, I am often in hospices and have seen with my own eyes many "good" and "bad" deaths and have a gut-instinct (like many people do) of trying to imagine myself in someone else's shoes and thinking I can accurately predict what i'd want in those circumstances... except i am probably deluding myself - because i simply don't know..

I have sat by the bed of several people - occasionally all night - people who have no relatives and no obvious "reason" to live or (from an outsider's perspective) no obvious quality of life (how dare I judge something like that?) - and willed them to die - and listened to a whole night's worth - hour after hour of stuttering death-rattle breathing - thinking that each breath might have been the last - but it isn't...

whatever you think either way - and principled people have well thought out positions on both sides - religious and non-religious - it's far too complex and important a discussion to be so casually thrown into a ranty swipe at the catholic church (in my opinion).

I agree with this, because of course without anything called religion, none of the elements on Pru's list would have occurred. Honest guv.

I think it's an oversimplified and somewhat convenient viewpoint. As a non-practising Catholic, I too have experienced a couple of very personal deaths (of my ma and pa Worthington). My pa, whose death rattle I listened to, I was relieved for when after years of suffering he finally looked at peace.

My ma, was revived a number of times during the same night, before the nursing staff asked me whether the should try to revive again. I agonised over what to respond and to this day agonise given the facts before me whether my response was right, wrong or otherwise. In neither event did "what the Catholic Church say" play any part.

I suspect demonisation of homosexuality would have happily chugged along without the Catholic Church, as indeed it does in some quarters today and I'm fairly sure that there's lots of people still not comfortable with the notion, but all that's occurred is that a group of other people have positioned the case for homosexuality being alright in a different way - which is fundamentally the same thing, the other way round and laws have been passed that don't allow (for example) two hoteliers to say "this isn't for me" at which point they're demonised for their belief...it all feels bugger all different to me.

[Prufrock]

Firstly, I wasn't laying those charges at the door of 'religion', I was laying them specifically at the door of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, it wasn't a defence for the Nazis to say that 'without us, there would still have been anti-semitism and killing'. To be guilty of a murder, you don't need to be guilty of all murders. Without the Catholic Church, would there be paedophiles? Yes. Without the Catholic Church are there paedophiles at large today who would have been brought to justice, or even not had the opportunity to abuse kids in the first place? Yes. Without the Catholic Church, would people have died of AIDS? Yes. Without the batty teachings of the Catholic Church, would that number be massively reduced? Yes. Etc...

Thirdly, I'm not convinced the anecdotal evidence of a non-practising Catholic in a largely secular democracy who didn't consider what the Church might want him to do at a difficult time is strong evidence for what happens elsewhere where the church has greater sway over people's lives.

Fourthly, whilst it might feel bugger all different to you, there quite clearly is in fact a difference between saying to somebody 'you can't do x in your private life which doesn't affect anybody else' and saying 'you can't do y if wish to open a business'. No-one (I hope) would make the argument that a B&B should be entitled to refuse a black couple, or a disabled couple (although if they would, they would at least be consistent). So the only difference must come back to this pernicious nonsense that homosexuality is somehow a 'lifestyle choice'. Well, if someone thinks that, they're wrong. And if you put an incorrect value in at the start of a process, you tend to get an incorrect answer at the end.

[Prufrock]

The opposition to offering the right to die to those in intolerable pain right now is led by... ?

I'm not sure that this is a fair characterisation of what the debate is about or who is against the Bill you are presumably referring to - but, then, maybe it wasn't meant to be?

the Bill isn't just about the right to die for those in intolerable pain - it's much bigger than that. In countries where similar laws have already passed there is (I believe) research to suggest that intolerable pain makes up only a small percentage of those who opt for assisted dying in some form...

personally I swing from yes to no to yes to no to maybe on the issue because I think it is very complex. I worry about lots of possible unintended consequences such as pressure on the elderly not to be a "burden" and the devaluing of disabled people...

on the other hand, I am often in hospices and have seen with my own eyes many "good" and "bad" deaths and have a gut-instinct (like many people do) of trying to imagine myself in someone else's shoes and thinking I can accurately predict what i'd want in those circumstances... except i am probably deluding myself - because i simply don't know..

I have sat by the bed of several people - occasionally all night - people who have no relatives and no obvious "reason" to live or (from an outsider's perspective) no obvious quality of life (how dare I judge something like that?) - and willed them to die - and listened to a whole night's worth - hour after hour of stuttering death-rattle breathing - thinking that each breath might have been the last - but it isn't...

whatever you think either way - and principled people have well thought out positions on both sides - religious and non-religious - it's far too complex and important a discussion to be so casually thrown into a ranty swipe at the catholic church (in my opinion).

I certainly agree that this is a difficult issue, and agree with a lot of the above. I do think there is a distinction between an argument against assisted dying because it is against God's will as all life is sacred (which comes from the same line of rational that condemns suicide) and arguments not against assisted dying, but against legalising assisted dying because the unintended consequences and scope for abuse outweigh the benefits. That's not meant to be a dig at the Catholic Church btw, as I don't know enough about what their position is. I suspect they hold the first, IMO weak, position, but they may well hold the second too.

[bobo the clown]

Do you actually know any Catholics ?

[Prufrock]

I know some. I've been quite clear, I think, that my criticism is of the Church, the Vatican and the Papacy, not ordinary believers. From my experience, your ordinary Catholic is as likely to be as good or bad a person as anyone else.

[bobo the clown]

I know some. I've been quite clear, I think, that my criticism is of the Church, the Vatican and the Papacy, not ordinary believers. From my experience, your ordinary Catholic is as likely to be as good or bad a person as anyone else.

Very magnanimous of you.

If someone came on here spouting the sort of shite you do but about Muslims you'd be all over them.

You often blarp on about Catholicism with, clearly, half arsed views. It's obvious you have some deep seated bigotry about them. Maybe you should analyse that a bit. I hope it doesn't carry through to your lawyering

[Lord Kangana]

If someone came on here spouting the sort of shite you do but about Muslims you'd be all over them.

Isn't that the essence of the debate over on the politics thread?

[Prufrock]

I know some. I've been quite clear, I think, that my criticism is of the Church, the Vatican and the Papacy, not ordinary believers. From my experience, your ordinary Catholic is as likely to be as good or bad a person as anyone else.

Very magnanimous of you.

If someone came on here spouting the sort of shite you do but about Muslims you'd be all over them.

You often blarp on about Catholicism with, clearly, half arsed views. It's obvious you have some deep seated bigotry about them. Maybe you should analyse that a bit. I hope it doesn't carry through to your lawyering

If someone 'spouted that sort of shite' about Catholics I'd be all over them. If you can't see the distinction between criticising the church, and criticising the believers then we're going to struggle.

You can't be bigoted against an organisation, or an idea. I have absolutely no time for Catholic-bashing, I have plenty of time for Catholic church bashing, for the reasons set out at length above, none of which you've addressed.

[bobo the clown]

If someone came on here spouting the sort of shite you do but about Muslims you'd be all over them.

Isn't that the essence of the debate over on the politics thread?

It is ... & your point on there is a good one.

[William the White]

Okay, Will, I've gone a little further to get the official Vatican position. This is from the 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia.

Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way [i.e. suffering without medicine because Christ suffered - Monty] of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor's advice. But the intensive use of painkillers is not without difficulties, because the phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to maintain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which retains its full force; in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: "Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics ... permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?" the Pope said: "If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes." In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.

Pius XII died in 1956 before Flood started spouting his views. Does this satisfy, Will?

Thank you very much for this. Yes that is an excellent clarification.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Smug, self righteous email forwarded round our London office from a colleague who is doing 10 marathons in 10 countries in 6 continents in 10 months.

She's currently raised £7.5k of a £10k sponsorship target.

I know she has covered all her own costs, but they must be at least £10k, FFS.

[boltonboris]

"I've raised £10k for charity"

No you've not, you've raised about £30 a flown all over the feckin world for the privilege

[Prufrock]

I'm definitely less offended when they're covering their own costs. There's still a part of me that thinks, 'well, if you'd added that money as well you'd have more', and particularly, 'you'd be better served trying to convince people of the merits of this charity rather than it being a foot-note to something that is essentially all about you' but in those cases, where the costs are covered, I still think it's better than them not doing anything at all.

There's a guy involved with our club whose girlfriend died of cancer and he's basically become a fund-raising machine, through running the Paris marathon then running to London to do the London marathon, to weird world-record attempts, to, and what is his main thing, combining teaching kids sports, with mass world-record attempts at the same time raising money. In his case my cynicism is easily defeated by my 'wow you're an amazing human being' response.

[bobo the clown]

"I've raised £10k for charity"

No you've not, you've raised about £30 a flown all over the feckin world for the privilege

So 100% correct.

"I raised, like, £95, for, like, charity ..... by, like, jumping out of an aeroplane using a parachute after only 6 training events, ya ..." which probably cost 10 times whatever you raised you preening git.

Fair play to Pru's guy who's made it a career. Totally different scale.


A friend of my #1 son wrote to us in the Spring explaining that while she's on a gap year (must be her third) she's climbing Kilimanjaro and if 30 of her friends/parents friends all stumped up £50 to £100 quid she'd be able to break even and we could keep up with her on her blog and anything left over would be given to her favourite animal charity from a list she'd put up, on her blog, for us to vote on.

She's actually a very nice kid, so I refrained from telling her to fck off. But sheesh ....

[Gary the Enfield]

I hope you tight arses donate to my just giving page when I do the Ironman next year......

[bobo the clown]

I hope you tight arses donate to my just giving page when I do the Ironman next year......

Are you planning to build a holiday around it ?

[Gary the Enfield]

I hope you tight arses donate to my just giving page when I do the Ironman next year......

Are you planning to build a holiday around it ?

In Horwich? Yes.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There's a guy involved with our club whose girlfriend died of cancer and he's basically become a fund-raising machine, through running the Paris marathon then running to London to do the London marathon, to weird world-record attempts, to, and what is his main thing, combining teaching kids sports, with mass world-record attempts at the same time raising money. In his case my cynicism is easily defeated by my 'wow you're an amazing human being' response.

I understand the 'I've got to do something' impulse in response to huge personal tragedy and the opening up of a huge gap in a person's life.

In many ways I always see this sort of thing as a response to a crisis or a feeling that something is missing.

[thebish]

There's a guy involved with our club whose girlfriend died of cancer and he's basically become a fund-raising machine, through running the Paris marathon then running to London to do the London marathon, to weird world-record attempts, to, and what is his main thing, combining teaching kids sports, with mass world-record attempts at the same time raising money. In his case my cynicism is easily defeated by my 'wow you're an amazing human being' response.

I understand the 'I've got to do something impulse' in response to hugh personal tragedy and the opening up of a huge gap in a person's life.

In many ways I always see this sort of thing as a response to a crisis or a feeling that something is missing.

you're right, I think...

in many cases, i think, it is something about regaining some kind of control... the death of someone close triggers many complex emotions - one of which is a feeling of helplessness that you could not prevent it - loss of control... I think it often lies behind the much-used phrase "we're doing this so that nobody else ever has to go what we went through" - a (sadly vain) but hugely admirable attempt to wrestle something good that we can control in some way out of a really sh*tty tragedy...

[Prufrock]

That all makes sense, I think.

And I do think it's different to Mummy's e-mailer. But as in her case, I'm much less annoyed by it when they're covering the costs themselves.