Eugenicist former Tory MP Matthew ‘Mengele’ Parris wants your elders to die
Former Tory MP turned broadcaster and Times columnist Matthew Parris has outed himself as a eugenicist who wants assisted death for older people:
'Pressure will grow on the terminally ill to hastern their own death – that's not a bad thing'
Parris in terminator mode – if you are a drain on society – just go
Sick#ToriesOut631 #SunakOut521 #GeneralElectionNow #Sunackered #UnitedAgainstTheTories #Starmer4PM #ToryChaos pic.twitter.com/CdPPHUlxEB
— dave lawrence 🐟🐟🐠 (@dave43law) March 30, 2024
His claim has attracted outrage:
.@metpoliceuk should have a word with Matthew Parris. Surely this is a hate crime? https://t.co/GZKcGrLouF
— Sharon (@K4rmaRules) March 30, 2024
And so it should. According to his belief, anyone who is no longer able to contribute to society through infirmity or disability should remove themselves from it, to save the rest a bob or two.
The only problem with that is that these people will have paid into the system their whole lives and therefore deserve the benefits that should be considered theirs by right, now they need help to get by.
But let’s get down to the details. Here’s Dr Rachel Clarke to put us all straight:
🧵 Whatever your views on assisted dying, one thing I’d hoped we’d all agree on is that the topic is ethically fraught & complex.
Not so Matthew Parris.
For him, it’s simple. Old & frail people *should* be killed – to save society the cost of looking after them. 1/n pic.twitter.com/a8JVgy0chl
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
Parris, you’ll have noted, takes that argument to a chilling extreme. He imagines compulsion/coercion being used – a world in which AD would be “urged upon” people.
And far from rejecting that world, he positively embraces it. 3/n pic.twitter.com/k8m1nMkoxY
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
He’s careful in that last paragraph to contradict his previous words, saying euthanasia will not be an “order” (he’s literally just endorsed it being “urged upon” people).
People whose economic output has waned yet who still insist on sponging off society, sorry, living. 5/n
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
How could they possibly imagine Britain can afford to subsidise their worthless existence?
If they won’t “choose” the decent thing, the painless cull, then economic realities must impose it upon them. 7/n
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
The economics of his argument are obvious nonsense, as demonstrated by the thousandfold increase in billionaire wealth since 1990.
How many frail lives could that £600 billion pounds help support, for example, as opposed to a tiny number of obscenely lavish lifestyles. 10/n pic.twitter.com/E6gDMN6Ela
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
I happen to be deeply biased, of course.
As I palliative care doctor, I work with exceptionally frail, vulnerable, dying patients every day at work.
My bias, if it is that, is grounded in experience.
So let me tell you what I see. 12/n
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
And the notion that my patients – who one day, without fail, will be you, me, all of us – do not deserve to live because they can’t do paid work is absolutely sickening. 14/n
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
Postscript. Long ago I made a deliberate choice not to state my personal views on AD in public – out of concern that this could potentially jeopardise my relationship with my patients. That still stands.
However, the prospect of AD putting pressure on vulnerable people to end…
— Dr Rachel Clarke (@doctor_oxford) March 30, 2024
Astonishingly, we should have seen this coming. Parris was saying the same in 2015.
Anyone checked on this guy's elders at all? https://t.co/BfqR2wIHsx
— Sue Marsh (@suey2y) March 30, 2024
For the record:
Parris is utterly wrong on this. The old and infirm have as much right to anybody. Perhaps we should invert the argument and say the obscenely rich should go for assisted death so their wealth can be freed up for the good of society?
Assisted dying is something that I do not like the idea of.
It is basically pessimistic in nature. Where would be the incentive to develop cures or prevention for diseases if we allow this to go ahead?