Comments on: death

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:10:12 +0000

I posted a short update at 1.45am yesterday, but it vanished when I clicked Submit. I’ve not found any page for the C4 documentary, but I did find a BBC2 documentary aired in March 2006, presented by Esther Rantzen, called How to have a good death (bbc.co.uk/health/tv_and_radio/how_to_have_a_good_death/). I also found a link to a media site from a few weeks prior to that, referring to documentaries about death due to be aired shortly on both BBC2 and C4, which I guess was the one I had in mind. C4′s website does not have a very comprehensive archive though. So I can’t reference the statistic, but I’m sure I remember a figure of that kind, and as this is the only life that I and people I care about are going to get I don’t want to make it easy for inconvenient elderly people to be encouraged or hastened off the end of it.

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:51:05 +0000

Hi Ophelia. I must admit I’m a little shaky on the exact number, but the figures came from a documentary I saw about 3 years ago, I think on Channel 4, about typical death in Britain. I’m pretty sure about the 60% figure, but I didn’t want to rely on my memory of the number who die with ‘assistance’ – I think chiefly through administration of excess amounts of drugs, or sometimes by lack of administration or treatment where it could have extended lives. I remembered it as 30,000 per year but that seemed very large. Perhaps I added a zero, and you may well ask how they could estimate such a figure anyway. I’m afraid I don’t remember, but even if my memory did multiply it by ten it’s still quite significant. At the same time, these are very elderly people whose minds and bodies have in most cases failed quite badly, and may well have wished a quick end. I will have a dig around on C4′s website and see if I can find any references. It wasn’t much fun to watch, I’m sure you can imagine.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:36:21 +0000

How do you know that?

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:40:07 +0000

Whilst I support – in principle – anyone’s right to end their life when they choose, making euthanasia legal does worry me. The elderly are already looked down on and seen as inconvenient, irrelevant or worthless. 60% of Britons already end their lives in hospitals, and the deaths of thousands of old people a year are already hastened by hospital staff, with or without their consent. Making euthanasia a legal choice for the elderly or sick would result in it being ‘chosen’ for far more than it already is by those supposed to be caring for them.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:46:22 +0000

But Author doesn’t specify religious beliefs. Author (or Barmaid) makes a different case. The issue isn’t one of ‘denying’ suicide but of forbidding it, which is a rather different matter. Barmaid says if you think it’s wrong by all means don’t do it, but you want to forbid everyone else to do it too. The idea is that their reasons are not strong enough to justify that – so ‘whether those reasons are good or not’ is actually not another question, it is precisely the question.

By: Aphra

Aphra — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:20:20 +0000

Well, I’ll be blowed! I never imagined I’d want to take issue with point made here by Author!

OK, so denying suicide, assisted or otherwise, on the grounds of eternal damnation is clearly bonkers but it is not the only reason for doing it. Lots of non-religious types, atheists and antitheists have secular moral reasons for denying it (whether those reasons are good or not is another question).

A reductio for you: the bible says “Thou shalt not kill” so is it OK for me to wreak bloody havoc because I’m not a believer? I think not!

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:02:02 +0000

“If someone honestly believes that doing something will send you to hell then I canâ€™t blame them for wanting to convince you to not do it.”

Sure you can. Or at least you can hold them responsible, which is more useful than blaming. Believing something for no good reason is blameworthy or irresponsible. We have no right to just believe any old thing, especially when we’re going to act on it and impose it on others.

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:26:10 +0000

I’m not sure of your point r00db00y – are you saying every publication of any kind must have as its avowed mission statement the intention to cause people who initially disagree with it to change their minds?

That may be a desirable aim in this case, but it would be pretty unrealistic to imagine that any one website is likely to de-religionise waves of god-lovers and drive them clear-eyed and rational out of the churches and mosques.

Just as it would be unlikely to imagine a dyed-in-the-wool Telegraph reader tearing up his Tory party membership card after reading a copy of the Guardian.

The work of satire and lampoonery is – I hope in this case – death by a thousand cuts, not a single blinding revelation. Keep chipping away, and every now and then the cumulative absurdity – exposed through satire – will resonate with one believer here, one there, and they will find themselves doubting their hitherto deeply held, and unquestioned, beliefs.

In the meantime, it makes we enlightened ones laugh. (Albeit in the case of this strip, slightly bitterly).

By: JoJo

JoJo — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:37:32 +0000

SPLITTER!!!!!

By: r00db00y

r00db00y — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:10:46 +0000

I may be wrong here, but why does this little folly of a cartoon exist if not to change the minds of the faithful? Or is it now seen as logical to preach only to the converted? You know that would effectively make this collective….The People’s Front of Judea?