'This debate in itself is dangerous' - Danny Kruger vs Rebecca Wilcox on euthanasia | SpectatorTV
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2024
- Assisted dying looks set to be debated in Parliament if Labour wins the next election, and if debated, it may well be passed in law. Is this a mistake, or a law that is long overdue to be passed? Danny Kruger, Conservative MP for Devizes, debates Rebecca Wilcox, daughter of Dame Esther Rantzen.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 John Lewis/Waitrose voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FREE PODCASTS FROM THE SPECTATOR
Hear more from The Spectator's journalists on their podcasts, covering everything from the politics of the UK, US and China, to religion, literature, lifestyle and more.
www.spectator.co.uk/podcasts/
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
/ thespectatormagazine
Theme song written and performed by Jon Barker © 2020 Jonathan Stewart Barker
Publisher Jonathan Stewart Barker 100%, administered by prsformusic.com
Recording © 2020 Jonathan Stewart Barker 100%, administered by ppl.com
Good quality healthcare in the UK? What planet is Danny living on?
If Danny had experienced a loved one dying it was a nightmare.
I’ve experienced two loved ones suffer and die with cancer and I wholly agree with Danny. Some disabled people in Canada are being offered euthanasia over care.
There are people suffering an agonising life, never mind death, for whom the strongest painkillers don't work and who are not allowed to bring it to a close.
Hear hear
Hard cases make bad law.
She says it's strictly being used on the terminally ill, but this just isn’t true. MAID in Canada has been offered to, even pushed on, people who are not terminally ill and the Netherlands has begun to see a similar expansion of scope.
I have great sympathy for people who are terminally ill and want to die on their own terms. But lying about the reality of these laws doesn't help anyone.
Assisted dying includes people who are depressed now in the counties that practice this . Think about that .
Which is a totally different kettle of fish. An appalling one.
Yes, the problem with legalizing assisted dying is once you crack open that door, the healthcare system has every incentive to expand it.
I have great sympathy for people who are terminally ill and want to go out on their own terms. But I think it needs to remain something that individuals do to themselves, not something doctors assist with.
It starts with terminal illness but it very quickly moves into mental health , homeless people and learning disability. It's happening in Canada and Australia.
I wish people would stop going on about cancer being a painful end. It is not only cancer which is painful! I watched my mother die in extreme agony which morphine didn’t touch the sides. She begged her GP to prescribe her something to help. After many weeks, the Gp did prescribe her something, which the care home had on their premises. But the care home was not allowed to give my mother the medication until she showed ‘signs of end of life’. What signs were these? (Neither she nor I were informed what these signs were, even after asking repeatedly). They told me after she had died. 1) Oedema. She was on diuretics! 2) Intense distress. She was intensely distressed, but as a lady with a very ‘stiff upper lip’, she didn’t show it. The day before she died, she whispered to me that she wanted to scream. I told her to. I will never forget that hideous noise. That is my last memory I have of her. Screaming like a wild animal in pain and despair. Nurses magically appeared and fell over themselves to administer the weeks-long prescribed medication, and she finally relaxed and slept, and passed away the next morning.
The purpose of medication is to heal and alleviate pain, not to kill.
First, do no harm….Original Hippocratic Oath
Myself & my sister were with my Mum who was in a similiar situation to the one you describe. A nightmare 💔
@@SharonBoland-ui3ns ? Your point being?
@@scaryfairy1502 Meds such as morphine when used to shut down a patient’s ability to breathe rather than merely alleviate pain constitute euthanasia.
To intentionally take the life of another is by definition mur-der; an act prohibited by the original Hippocratic oath which governs, and indeed must continue to govern, the moral and ethical duty of doctors and all medical professionals to their patients…first, do no harm.
I enjoy the jolly ragtime piano on the intro and out
Here in the state of Oregon we have it. No slippery slope nor any efforts of which I am aware to change the rules. I believe it is used in about 250 cases each year.
I have long supported assisted dying, i still do, but the 'slippery slope' doesnt always seem to be a fallacy - see what has happened in Canada and Netherlands.
We are just units, they won't do this to the Elite People. The Elites would be quite happy with Logan's Run for thee not me.
Respectfully Rebecca Wilcox doesn't seem to have the facts about 'the slippery slope'. Please look at what has happened in other countries where they started with the same argument. Doctors take an oath to do no harm, please think about the wider impact beyond the individual sad cases.
The opioid barrier can be surmounted by doctors being allowed to increase the dose ages until the barrier is crossed and the inevitable happens. That protects the doctors and does not amount to direct euthanasia
Towards the end she makes the comparison with abortion " there was no slippery slope in that case " Are you sure ?! Look at the numbers , what happened was that as abortion was legalised it was then normalised , the result a lot more abortions eventually becoming the contraception of last resort - something that was always argued against as a slippery slope falasy .
It could well be that this was an accurate comparison but not for the reasons that Wilcox thinks
Different country, different criteria. In the UK there has to be exceptional circumstances to abort later than 12 weeks. And no abortions after birth.
@@FC-PeakVersatilityno the limit is 24 weeks. There’s also subtle but repeated pressure applied to mothers (& fathers) in the U.K. to abort if an in utero diagnosis shows Down’s Syndrome. I’m not saying the mother (& father) shouldn’t have that option just that they should not be pressured to take the option.
This pressure is more overt in Iceland where the Icelandic government had decided no children with Downs will be born. They can’t stop foetus with Downs being conceived so that means that any mother whose tests indicate Downs is expected to abort. That’s one hell of a slippery slope and removal of choice.
@@sookibeulah9331 it can happen after 12 weeks (actually I think it may be 13 nowadays) but it’s not as easy in the second trimester as the first. And, yes, I agree with you about pressurisation - it absolutely shouldn’t happen. Present the facts, yes. Offer the options, yes. But mummy and daddy should have informed choice on going full term
@@FC-PeakVersatility NHS website says 24 weeks. It’s not as easy after 12 weeks as it’s a different, more serious procedure.
My point though is that what’s initially seen as choice can become expectation over time. In 20/30 years time will we be made to feel guilty for “using up NHS resources” or “burning through children’s inheritance” or something similar because we don’t want to be euthanised.
@@sookibeulah9331 I think, in 20-30 years time, that we’ll be lucky to have any nhs resources to use let alone abuse. And there are already children who are trying to stitch their parents up for the inheritance to be paid up front, not after the fact 🤦
I completely agree with Danny Kruger. I know that if this legislation is passed it will be the thin end of the wedge, and eventually, it will be the vulnerable who will be seen as a burden and they will be encouraged to end their life. Have a look at the amount of babies who are aborted and how those numbers have grown. It will become commonplace. Please please think about what you are asking for. Just because you can request euthanasia, will not equate to you having peace. An “abominable “ death is not about the physical aspects of death and dying, it is also about the distress and despair that goes with the knowledge that you are terminally Ill. This is particularly distressing for the young or those with young families. You can’t just reach for a switch. In palliative care we call this distress “total pain” . Carting them off for euthanasia is not the answer, they require, care and compassion, and spiritual support, as well as the physical management of their symptoms. All of this will be disregarded once killing the sick becomes normalised.
We don't let our loved pets suffer. Why do we allow our human loved ones to suffer?
😕
This is just another name for maid in Canada. This is the thin end of the wedge.. Perhaps we should have allowed Harrold Shipman to carry on
Maid?? Please make sense 🤔
@@pamdowns1302name of the Canadian euthanasia program, which has become pushed on some people and a top ten cause of death already
@@pamdowns1302probably autocorrect being a nuisance
@@pamdowns1302 Maid stands for 'Medical assistance in dying'
@@M-TGram ah clear now, thanks! Thought it was a misspelt Made in Canada..
For Rebecca's case yes. For many others, Danny properly identifies them and flag as potential misuse, abuse.
No to assisted dying.
We wouldn't treat our animals like this, why would we do it to our loved ones.
Because we're not animals. DUH
@@NicholasWongCQ 🤦🏼 biology isn't your strong point is it. All mammals are animals 🙄
It’s outrageous for this pontification , we desperately need this legislation. It’s prevarication.
Please people listen to this guy.
In the past medical practitioners would swear to the Hippocratic Oath or interpretations of it, many physicians now days do not swear to this oath however it is not expected that such a qualified person would stray from the statements Primum non nocere (first do no harm).
The oath says of the patient “I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”.
To enact a law giving the physician the lawful right to kill a patient will only increase the distrust of the professions ethics and the physician must not be involved in any such process.
If a person is in full capacity wishes to hasten a painful process they should be allowed to do so by their own hand, this was always possible (not legally) until recent legislation removed barbiturates from being prescribed for sleep deprivation, there is no reason why these substances should not be available or a strong opiate or morphine mixture. The patient then as they should always be is in total control.
The physician should not be placed in the situation where that person becomes the patients executioner.
Agreed.
In English hospitals, now, elderly patients, regardless of the diagnosis of their condition are invariably put on geriatric wards. They will be given antibiotics for example to treat an infection but will be given no encouragement psychologically to regain their strength. Food is rapidly withdrawn and in cases I have witnessed hydration, opiates are given intra muscular and the patient dies, it’s called the Liverpool Pathway or Modified Liverpool Pathway. NHS England 2024.
This as I understand the term is called euthanasia as that is illegal in England it’s been renamed the modified Liverpool pathway.
Medicine has already deteriorated to a very low level of efficacy the introduction of legally induced euthanasia administered by physicians is a step to far.