Posted on 10/31/2010 10:32:22 AM PDT by wagglebee
LONDON, October 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) Unlike gold and platinum, life does not have value in itself, a member of the House of Lords and a campaigner for assisted suicide said in a televised debate last week. Medical professionals need to change their attitude towards assisted suicide, to take into account the wishes of patients who request to die, said Baroness Mary Warnock, known in Britain as the philosopher queen of bioethics.
There is no moral justification why the opinions of judges, lawyers and doctors should override those of the patient [who has expressed a wish to die], she said.
The mission of doctors is to help people, to make their lives better not worse. Sometime death is more desirable than life.
Mary Warnock is known as Britains leading bioethicist and proponent of assisted suicide. She recently commented that the refusal of doctors to participate in assisted suicide is genuinely wicked. Her books include Easeful Death: Is there a case for assisted dying? and Making Babies: Is there a right to have children?
Warnock said that to examine the issue from the law alone was legalistic and trivialised the issue: behind the law is a moral judgment, she said.
Those who argued along with Warnock for the motion of the debate, Assisted Suicide should be legalised: the terminally-ill should have the legal right to be helped to end their lives, included Emily Jackson, professor of law at the London School of Economics and Debbie Purdy, the well-known assisted suicide campaigner with multiple sclerosis. The debate was organised by the debating society, Intelligence Squared, which stages debates on topics of public interest around the world.
During the debate, Prof. Emily Jackson cited research from the American state of Oregon, and the Netherlands, arguing that patients asking for assisted suicide do so because of a loss of autonomy, a loss of dignity, or a loss of the joys of life. She said that it is up to the patient to decide.
Jackson did not mention recent studies showing that in Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, as many as 30 per cent of those killed by doctors did not give consent.
Jacksons assertions were challenged by Lord Alex Carlile QC, a barrister and Liberal Democrat peer, who noted that the law and practice in the Netherlands and Belgium had yet to stand up to a court challenge. He pointed out that with legalised assisted suicide, physicians would be allowed to act as judges, and said that there is no acceptable way to legislate for assisted dying.
Carlile, joint chair of Living and Dying Well, said that there is no reason to trust self-selected death judges and doctors any more than people of any other profession or job. He cited the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that under that agreement, it is only acceptable to take human life in self defence or in war. According to legal definitions in the Convention, assisted suicide constitutes homicide.
Called a leading philosopher, Mary Baroness Warnock was created a life peer in 1985. She was a key figure in the creation of Britains current law on artificial procreation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. She was a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on Euthanasia and forms part of a powerful political faction that continues to press for legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
This evil bitch will burn in Hell.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If you don’t believe in God, and you think that life is simply a matter of chance, then what is the difference between a human and a roach? Nothing of significance.
The endless desire of some to discount the value of life is such a zero-sum game. Nihilism is only cool when you’re in college, and only for a day or two even then. In the real world it has no value.
Preservation of one's own life is a God given natural duty which precedes the natural right to life.
She looks like a candidate.
Why does then think that she has something to say that is worth listening to?
If life has no value, then hers doesn't either, contrary to her assumptions that it does since she clearly thinks that she has something important to say.
There morons never think through their reasoning to it's logical conclusion.
I’ve sent this to nearly every one on my email list SCARY
Dr. David Janda explains rationing and why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ&NR=1
Dr George explains in print what Dr Junda said on camera
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First
by Dr. Elaina George
She meant to say that only HER life is of value.
Lead by example, woman.
... I would then have him trace the process of our moral decline, to watch, first, the sinking of the foundations of morality as the old teaching was allowed to lapse, then the rapidly increasing disintegration, then the final collapse of the whole edifice, and the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.....of late years wealth has made us greedy, and self-indulgence has brought us, through every form of sensual excess, to be, if I may so put it, in love with death both individual and collective... TITUS LIVIUS 59 B.C. TO 17 A.D.
Prove it!
Put your hand your throat and choke yourself to death.
that we're all useless eaters and we need to be irradicated?Well. you and all your one world government PUKES can go get bent!
A face made for Halloween....
“as many as 30 per cent of those killed by doctors did not give consent.”
Yeah, I see how ‘loss of autonomy’ justifies euthanasia.
If it has no value, then she wouldn’t mind if someone came to take her life, correct? She’d just sit there and accept that fate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.