Thursday, 12 June 2014

The hypocrisy over euthanasia and assisted suicide

The UK’s Government, the National Health Service and the legal system and its enforcers are hypocrites when it comes to euthanasia and assisted suicide because if an individual makes a conscious and reasoned choice to wish to end their life but cannot do so without help, the person who assists in the suicide is deemed a murderer.  How can this be the case when the assisted suicide is a voluntary act by and for the individual?

The hypocrisy of the aforementioned agencies becomes clear when, as I mentioned in the addendum to my article, The Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Debate[1], they allow and even encourage involuntary euthanasia via the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).  The LCP is supposed to be an end-of-life care pathway for terminally ill patients but reported incidents have shown that older non-terminal patients have been put on the pathway involuntarily without their knowledge or consent or that of their family.  While this may not be acknowledged as Governmental consent, the fact that it goes on and must, at some point, be reported in briefings for the Secretary of State for Health, it does indicate tacit official Governmental consent.

So, the Government allows involuntary euthanasia of terminally and non-terminally ill patients by members of the National Health Service yet these acts are not considered murder by the legal system (if they are even reported at all) so why are people who help someone commit suicide considered murderers?  It is not as though governments all over the world legally sanction murder as a matter of course anyway.  In fact, they not only officially sanction murder, they also train murderers to kill; the only differences between an unsanctioned murderer and a sanctioned one is they name they are given – murderer or soldier – and the fact that the former is hated for their crime and the latter is hailed as a hero for their acts of bravery.

The only reason that soldiers get to kill, usually without criminal prosecution, although there have been some prosecutions, is because, in the law of England and Wales, provision is made in the legal definition of murder to absolve soldiers in times of war.  This provision states that murder ‘under the Queen’s peace’ is a crime; therefore, in times of war, the crime of murder does not exist for soldiers although it still exists for civilians because they are technically still living ‘under the Queen’s peace’.

I’m not trying to blacken the reputations of our armed forces because they do a fine job but we also have to acknowledge that, whether they do a necessary job or not, they are trained to kill.  Our armed forces take human life which is the very definition of a murderer.  They are just officially sanctioned and just following the orders given to them by their superiors who likewise get their orders from the Government of the day.  The murders that they commit are usually not on home soil either so that is another mitigating factor.

Some might say at this point that a murderer kills for some kind of personal gain but I would counter that a soldier kills for gain too; it’s just not a personal one.  The war in Iraq was fought not because of some vague possibility of that country holding weapons of mass destruction, although that was the reason given by both the UK and US Governments, it was to guarantee the supply of oil from that country – a gain for the countries involved.  War is a game played by politicians for personal glory and national gain.  Soldiers are the pawns used to play the game and officially sanctioned murder is the method.

It would be neglectful to fail to mention that the current UK Government is also guilty of acts of officially sanctioned involuntary euthanasia and assisted suicide through the horrific welfare ‘reforms’ that have been responsible for 10.600 premature deaths and suicides in one year alone [2] and many more since[3] [4].

So, with all this officially sanctioned involuntary euthanasia, assisted suicide and murder, why is it still a crime to help someone voluntarily commit suicide?  Yes, there should be safeguards in place but if someone wishes to have help to commit suicide, why shouldn’t they be allowed that help without their assistant getting prosecuted?  If a person can provide a well-thought out and cogent argument for an act of voluntary assisted suicide, shouldn’t they be allowed that option?

I am currently being seen by the Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Team due to my current mental health crisis.  On the last four or five visits I have asked for the visitor to help me find a healthcare professional to help me die but they have refused on the grounds that it’s not their job to help someone die but rather help an individual carry on.  I countered with the fact that the Hippocratic Oath states “First, do no harm” and that prolonging my suffering is doing me harm.  I have lived in darkness now for 36 years, suffering the tortures of the damned every single day and I have had enough.  I can provide a well-thought out and cogent argument for my wishes and it would be a voluntary act for my part so why can’t someone have the guts to help me end my life the way I wish it to be ended?  With all the officially sanctioned involuntary euthanasia, assisted suicides and murders going on, why can’t the Government allow me the luxury of an officially sanctioned voluntary assisted suicide?

No comments:

Post a Comment