The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, currently before the House of Lords, has been presented by its supporters as a measure rooted in autonomy, dignity and choice.
All of that is true. And that alone is sufficient grounds to reject state-sanctioned murder "for their own good" wrapped on benign terms like "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia." The "nudges" and perverse incentives you explain are not a benign architecture of choice.
But that architecture you describe, that Sunstein and Thaler described, doesn't use just a stool to construct. It uses a "ladder." And on a ladder there is more than one step. Each rung on the ladder goes higher and higher into the world of coercion until the top rung of mandates is reached. And "assisted suicide" is ordered, the standard protocol becomes state-sanctioned murder of "undesirables," "useless eater" drains on resources. The 'compassionate' thing that 'good' people do.
This is how it inevitably escalates once the decision is made to step onto the choice architecture ladder. The first rung being the just that - the first.
We saw this during plandemic, voluntary mask guidance became mandatory, free faces violently assaulted by police, merchants, Karen's and Ken's. Voluntary injections of experimental biotech became mandatory to work, eat, play, exist.
And the world saw the choice architecture of "euthanasia" become mass murder crimes against humanity in just a few decades after stepping on the first rung of the ladder a century ago. By people no worse than we are today, albeit without the fancy academic lingo of "nudge" and "choice architecture" "behavioural science" being employed.
It's just where it goes. No grand scheme or design, no conspiracy necessary. Just human nature and how incentives, groupthink and moral busybodies convinced of their system of ethics, utilitarianism, calls for the "greater good" sacrifices of the few for the many.
There is no possible way to build in protections from past abuses, murderous public policy in practice if not law, that will withstand all who hold that power. The power of that ring so intoxicating that it cannot be put down, "my precious."
As the SPI-B/BIT nudgers Laura interviewed in State of Fear described how their best intentions led to authorities drunk on power making the newly reticent fearful of the future of our free, democratic society.
"Assisted suicide" is given a ladder of interventions when it becomes state policy, not a stool many well-intentioned caregivers imagine when they step on the first rung of "nudges."
The sanctity of life must be preserved, no matter how heartbreaking individual stories are. For the greater good of not unleashing mass murder crimes against humanity...again. Aren't we supposed to learn from history lest we be doomed to repeat it?
Good to see you mentioning being nudged into compliance...The fraught days of 2020, when Dr Susan Michie was giving quite a few people the creeps..! Anyone feeling that they are being nudged surely has rights under recent ECHR rulings..."alarm and despondency"...What..?
Nope. Her partner in crime, Jeremy Farrar, also with the WHO today, Chief Scientist. Taking the "lessons" they learned from the plandemic from just the UK to global health policy. The most aggressive, committed totalitarians "promoted" to shape global health. Exactly what the CCP and population 'control' advocate Bill Gates paid for. Abortion, sterilization, euthanasia being their most "effective" means of control. Bringing a new understanding of the slogan, "safe and effective" as *they* understand the words, which is not as you/we do.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill... somehow, we just know that there is an inevitability about the whole thing; and also that the first "mission creep", once it is law, will be over that pesky little word "Adults".
My mother recently chose assisted dying here in NZ. From start to finish it was all amazingly professional . The day itself I’d describe as awful, beautiful and surreal all wrapped up in a bow.
She saved herself weeks of pain and suffering and spared us from having to watch her pain.
There seem to be a lot of people projecting their own prejudices here. In particular, the use of emotive language (state-sanctioned murder) is not only unhelpful, but very much weakens the case against the bill. To be clear, human life is not 'sacred', not 'precious' not 'god-given' - all value-loaded terms. We are born and we die. What happens in the middle is, or should be, an individual's choice. Quoting doctors' opinions is irrelevant - our lives are not theirs to direct.
The real danger here, for me, is that we will do that usual British thing of sacrificing any potential good that might come out of the bill while adopting wholesale all of the bureaucracy and delay in which we excel. There will be ample cost, but absolutely no benefit.
Was at the hospital today, getting my 6-month check to see if I am still cancer-free after a thyroid gland removal. And thinking about how Japan's public health policy is increasingly being driven by rapidly crumbling demographics.
The rise of the anti-immigrant Sanseito party does not want the same thing that is happening in England and Western Europe, but replacing a rapidly diminishing workforce, and fund the health care and retirement system with robots and A.I.? Robots don't pay taxes.
Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish predictive programming from nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
There seem to be a lot of people projecting their own prejudices here. In particular, the use of emotive language (state-sanctioned murder) is not only unhelpful, but very much weakens the case against the bill. To be clear, human life is not 'sacred', not 'precious' not 'god-given' - all value-loaded terms. We are born and we die. What happens in the middle is, or should be, an individual's choice. Quoting doctors' opinions is irrelevant - our lives are not theirs to direct.
The real danger here, for me, is that we will do that usual British thing of sacrificing any potential good that might come out of the bill while adopting wholesale all of the bureaucracy and delay in which we excel. There will be ample cost, but absolutely no benefit.
The medical profession should give unbiased advice, explaining the pros and cons. That should be all.
It is then up to the patient to decide what they want to do. There will be a myriad or factors influencing their decision, factors the medical professional won’t have any knowledge about.
Well written and presented. How long before the state or it's institutions mandate euthanasia as a solution, rather than offer it as an option. Not that much time at all I think, especially in the current and ever worsening economic and social circumstances.
This is a very complex ethical and moral theme. At a relatively healthy 69 I have chosen to register my advanced directive with the NHS and in my power of attorney legal document.
The biggest concern most of us have about our end, is to have some control over this. In life’s lottery, some of us might get this and some of us get no control at all.
As a volunteer befriender for lonely individuals aged over 90, it is interesting how many of them would like more control in determining when they want to die. How this new legalisation might help or hinder them is another part of this ethical/moral dilemma.
I can understand the worries people have over this Bill, but there are other views - to see a loved one in pain or distress that cannot be relieved, is horrendous. My husband and I have been members of what used to be the Voluntary Euthanasia Society for years, and even as we approach the likelihood of our own deaths, we still want the option to be given to those who request it.
All of that is true. And that alone is sufficient grounds to reject state-sanctioned murder "for their own good" wrapped on benign terms like "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia." The "nudges" and perverse incentives you explain are not a benign architecture of choice.
But that architecture you describe, that Sunstein and Thaler described, doesn't use just a stool to construct. It uses a "ladder." And on a ladder there is more than one step. Each rung on the ladder goes higher and higher into the world of coercion until the top rung of mandates is reached. And "assisted suicide" is ordered, the standard protocol becomes state-sanctioned murder of "undesirables," "useless eater" drains on resources. The 'compassionate' thing that 'good' people do.
This is how it inevitably escalates once the decision is made to step onto the choice architecture ladder. The first rung being the just that - the first.
We saw this during plandemic, voluntary mask guidance became mandatory, free faces violently assaulted by police, merchants, Karen's and Ken's. Voluntary injections of experimental biotech became mandatory to work, eat, play, exist.
And the world saw the choice architecture of "euthanasia" become mass murder crimes against humanity in just a few decades after stepping on the first rung of the ladder a century ago. By people no worse than we are today, albeit without the fancy academic lingo of "nudge" and "choice architecture" "behavioural science" being employed.
It's just where it goes. No grand scheme or design, no conspiracy necessary. Just human nature and how incentives, groupthink and moral busybodies convinced of their system of ethics, utilitarianism, calls for the "greater good" sacrifices of the few for the many.
There is no possible way to build in protections from past abuses, murderous public policy in practice if not law, that will withstand all who hold that power. The power of that ring so intoxicating that it cannot be put down, "my precious."
As the SPI-B/BIT nudgers Laura interviewed in State of Fear described how their best intentions led to authorities drunk on power making the newly reticent fearful of the future of our free, democratic society.
"Assisted suicide" is given a ladder of interventions when it becomes state policy, not a stool many well-intentioned caregivers imagine when they step on the first rung of "nudges."
The sanctity of life must be preserved, no matter how heartbreaking individual stories are. For the greater good of not unleashing mass murder crimes against humanity...again. Aren't we supposed to learn from history lest we be doomed to repeat it?
Nudged into a mass grave with a bulldozer.
Good to see you mentioning being nudged into compliance...The fraught days of 2020, when Dr Susan Michie was giving quite a few people the creeps..! Anyone feeling that they are being nudged surely has rights under recent ECHR rulings..."alarm and despondency"...What..?
Susan Michie, aka "Stalin's Nanny," now the WHO's Chief Behavioural Scientist. Aka "Mind Rapist."
I'm glad she hasn't drifted into obscurity...there's a seat in court awaiting her...
Nope. Her partner in crime, Jeremy Farrar, also with the WHO today, Chief Scientist. Taking the "lessons" they learned from the plandemic from just the UK to global health policy. The most aggressive, committed totalitarians "promoted" to shape global health. Exactly what the CCP and population 'control' advocate Bill Gates paid for. Abortion, sterilization, euthanasia being their most "effective" means of control. Bringing a new understanding of the slogan, "safe and effective" as *they* understand the words, which is not as you/we do.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill... somehow, we just know that there is an inevitability about the whole thing; and also that the first "mission creep", once it is law, will be over that pesky little word "Adults".
My mother recently chose assisted dying here in NZ. From start to finish it was all amazingly professional . The day itself I’d describe as awful, beautiful and surreal all wrapped up in a bow.
She saved herself weeks of pain and suffering and spared us from having to watch her pain.
Life is so unbearable under Marxist Labour, can I opt for suicide this weekend? Imagine never having to see Starmer's stupid face ever again.
Just watch Canada. What happens there will happen here
There seem to be a lot of people projecting their own prejudices here. In particular, the use of emotive language (state-sanctioned murder) is not only unhelpful, but very much weakens the case against the bill. To be clear, human life is not 'sacred', not 'precious' not 'god-given' - all value-loaded terms. We are born and we die. What happens in the middle is, or should be, an individual's choice. Quoting doctors' opinions is irrelevant - our lives are not theirs to direct.
The real danger here, for me, is that we will do that usual British thing of sacrificing any potential good that might come out of the bill while adopting wholesale all of the bureaucracy and delay in which we excel. There will be ample cost, but absolutely no benefit.
Hi from a late night in Japan Laura.
Was at the hospital today, getting my 6-month check to see if I am still cancer-free after a thyroid gland removal. And thinking about how Japan's public health policy is increasingly being driven by rapidly crumbling demographics.
The rise of the anti-immigrant Sanseito party does not want the same thing that is happening in England and Western Europe, but replacing a rapidly diminishing workforce, and fund the health care and retirement system with robots and A.I.? Robots don't pay taxes.
Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish predictive programming from nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-at2w5ORFfE
Oyasumi nasai.
There seem to be a lot of people projecting their own prejudices here. In particular, the use of emotive language (state-sanctioned murder) is not only unhelpful, but very much weakens the case against the bill. To be clear, human life is not 'sacred', not 'precious' not 'god-given' - all value-loaded terms. We are born and we die. What happens in the middle is, or should be, an individual's choice. Quoting doctors' opinions is irrelevant - our lives are not theirs to direct.
The real danger here, for me, is that we will do that usual British thing of sacrificing any potential good that might come out of the bill while adopting wholesale all of the bureaucracy and delay in which we excel. There will be ample cost, but absolutely no benefit.
The medical profession should give unbiased advice, explaining the pros and cons. That should be all.
It is then up to the patient to decide what they want to do. There will be a myriad or factors influencing their decision, factors the medical professional won’t have any knowledge about.
It is really that simple.
Well written and presented. How long before the state or it's institutions mandate euthanasia as a solution, rather than offer it as an option. Not that much time at all I think, especially in the current and ever worsening economic and social circumstances.
Thank you Laura
This is a very complex ethical and moral theme. At a relatively healthy 69 I have chosen to register my advanced directive with the NHS and in my power of attorney legal document.
The biggest concern most of us have about our end, is to have some control over this. In life’s lottery, some of us might get this and some of us get no control at all.
As a volunteer befriender for lonely individuals aged over 90, it is interesting how many of them would like more control in determining when they want to die. How this new legalisation might help or hinder them is another part of this ethical/moral dilemma.
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/why-should-pets-suffer-the-stupidity
I can understand the worries people have over this Bill, but there are other views - to see a loved one in pain or distress that cannot be relieved, is horrendous. My husband and I have been members of what used to be the Voluntary Euthanasia Society for years, and even as we approach the likelihood of our own deaths, we still want the option to be given to those who request it.