Chequebook euthanasia – who’s the biggest threat to other people?
Here comes the reaper: Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Believe it or not, the author of these blog articles doesn’t spend all his time at Vox Towers churning them out.
That’s why, earlier today (Monday), it was possible to gauge the veracity of this blog’s ‘chequebook euthanasia’ story by asking acquaintances at a local hotel for their opinion.
After hearing the circumstances of the case from beginning to end, one friend (who is today Christened, thanks to bar staff at the same hotel, ‘The Guinness Guy’) responded: “That’s bulls**t.”
Further questioning revealed that he’s not a fan of Russia Today; when he learned I’d been interviewed by that channel, he lost interest.
Then there’s the response on Beastrabban\’s Weblog. The Beast wrote: “Mike, in his article discussing Messers Appleby’s and Warner’s findings, suggests that the question [“Why haven’t you committed suicide?”] may even be a subtle strategy by the Tories and their corporate enablers to nudge the vulnerable into [doing so]. Their deaths by their own hands would allow the Tories to make savings on the welfare budget, while allowing them to deny any actual responsibility for their deaths.
“Mike may have a point here. I’ve a friend who used to be a psychiatric nurse. He told me that the law has been changed governing admissions to mental hospitals. It used to be the case that someone could be sectioned if they were a danger to themselves and others. Now, under Dave Cameron, it’s been altered. The law no longer requires that they be admitted if they are a danger to themselves, only if they are a threat to other people. Clearly, Cameron’s government have no interest in preventing people from taking their own life. And this question put to depressives of why they haven’t, suggests that they are in fact hoping that some may even do so.”
Of course, this blog places more credence with the Beast’s response. Not only does he provide evidence (albeit third-hand) but he also happens to be Yr Obdt Srvt’s big brother.
The change in the law is definitely worth researching. After all, if the law requires people to be sectioned if they are a danger to other people, isn’t it time David Cameron, George Osborne, Iain Duncan Smith and their entire ruthless cadre of bandits were locked up once and for all?
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
And how will they interpret “threat to other people”? Like was done with the author/ teacher Patrick McLaw in America?
Apart from the very wealthy few, the nasty Tories have no interest at all in people – full stop.
I can’t find a single reference to this, Mike .. the latest consultation document still has the “danger to oneself” sectioning criteria very much at the forefront of assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330713/DoH_Code_of_Practice_for_web.pdf
It’s happening in PIP medicals as well, a friend reported that to me on my fb page when I shared your previous article.
Could you send me the web address? I won’t put it up but I’d like to use it in evidence.
Smith’s sole intention was, and still is, to inflict destitution. Nothing else. However it looks like the “hand of history on his shoulder” is the UN feeling his collar. The Hague beckons? :-)
“the law has been changed governing admissions to mental hospitals.”
I spent ten days in my hospital’s Stroke Unit – a secure ward for purposes of the MH Act. I was free to come and go because I still had of all my marbles, but many of my fellow patients were a risk to themselves and others and tagged so they couldn’t leave the ward. We had a standing joke about “going over the wire” during the night.
Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill
Assisted suicide might soon be legal in Scotland:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/69604.aspx
In England, there is a similar bill called the Assisted Dying Bill.
Vigilance and protest are called for.
I think it is cheapening to lump those considering assisted suicide in with those who have been driven to such desperate thoughts by IDS. I agree that assisted suicide is a contentious issue but it involves people who are terminally sick or in extreme pain but, importantly, are in a mental state to decide their own future. I, for one, would welcome the ability to be helped on my way, without those helpers being regarded as criminals, if my life became unbearable through pain or I was a burden to my family.
Joan Edington, in the cases you mention, the decision to end life is initiated by someone (allegedly of sound mind) who (allegedly) grants their consent.
In the cases talked about on this page here, the “assistance” is being suggested by a tick-box practitioner to someone already suffering from depression and who might not be of sound mind. That kind of assistance (or suggestion or nudge) is clearly an unacceptable practice and certainly a perspective to bear in mind when considering the vexed subject of assisted suicide.