IF Dr Peter Saunders, General Secretary of Christian Medical Fellowship, had his way, I would be denied the opportunity to attend a suicide workshop scheduled to be held in Brighton tomorrow by Australian euthanasia expert Philip Nitschke.
Let me assure readers that I am in no way suicidal – but I, alongside around 80 percent of the British population, support the legalisation of assisted suicide, and I passionately believe that adults of a sound mind should be allowed to attend any gathering where the issue can be discussed in a dispassionate, rational way.
Philip Nitschke with a kit used to test euthansia drugs such as Nembutal
That’s why I will be at the Brighthelm Centre at 1 pm tomorrow.
Saunders, who is also Campaign Director for the anti-euthanasia Care Not Killing organisation, branded Nitschke “a publicity-seeking extremist” and said:
We’d like to see these talks stopped. He is effectively offering a loaded gun to people who need support.
Saunders was quoted in The People last month in an article which in which Nitschke was described as:
A twisted trafficker in DIY suicides [who] should be banned from peddling his vile trade in Britain.
Interviewed on BBC Radio 4 this evening, Nitschke – fresh from conducting a workshop in Bournemouth – hit back at Saunders, saying he had deliberately distorted his work, and was basically “a liar”.
Before being allowed into the UK, Nitschke faced a lengthy grilling by immigration authorities at Heathrow. He then went to Bournemouth, where, according to the Guardian, he calmly explained to 100 middle-aged and elderly people how, if they chose, they could take their own lives.
Nitschke spoke about his “DIY suicide kit”, showed the audience films explaining some of the techniques involved, and patiently answered their questions.
Anyone aged over 50 or seriously ill was invited to join Exit, his right-to-die organisation, for a fee of £25 and attend in-depth workshops.
Said Nitschke:
We were aware of the demographic in Bournemouth. We knew there was a lot of retired folk down here. The people that generally join Exit are, well, elderly folk who are interested in this issue. They want options, they want choices. They know the choices or changes to legislation are likely to occur one day but they don’t have the time to wait.
Nitschke argues that he is championing a basic right.
People see it as a fundamental right, the right to decide that if your life is not worth living that you should be able to end that life. We provide people with information. That information allows them to make valid choices.
The idea that you can, on the one hand, commit suicide and not break the law but, on the other hand, never get information about it, makes the situation impossible for many people. They simply cannot get information and they become more desperate, and desperate people do desperate things.
Nitschke added:
Not all suicide is bad. A compassionate society should allow that option in the same way as we allow it for our pets.
Edward Gwinnell, 79, who attended the event, said:
I wanted to learn more about Exit. It’s designed to get you a peaceful exit from this life. I don’t want to degenerate into an unthinking mess who needs constant care and attention. I want to be able to make my exit with dignity. Human beings have the right to the truth and discussion. We should be able to discuss things. It is a country of free speech.
In the UK, assisted suicide is illegal, with a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison.
In an article on the CMF website, Saunders argues:
The law is both clear and right. Changing it to allow assisted suicide, even in limited circumstances, would place vulnerable people – the sick, elderly, depressed and disabled – under pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death for fear of being a financial or emotional burden on their family, on carers or on the state. The so-called ‘right to die’ can so easily become the duty to die.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
May 6th, 2009 at 2:03 am
well of course – another religionist who thinks that his way is the way everyone should live their lives. These objections to assisted suicide have been answered time and again. Th etruth is that with suitable precautions assisted suicide becomes a very viable option. AND experience in those countries (such as the Netherlands) where it is legal, show that the majority die a natural death anyway without invoking the assisted suicide option. But basically it's MY life and MY right to end it and no stupid god botherer should have any say in the matter. I'd like to see Saunders suffering what my samoyed suffered and begging to go and being denied that right.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am
I really do get sick of the religious bleating on about "what's needed is better palliative care." I wonder if these twats would be so eager for palliative care if they could experience the pain of terminal illness?
No, wait…"better palliative care"…that can't be right: 'Saint' Theresa of Calcutta withheld the drugs, didn't she, because she thought that the suffering was for our benefit.
And Obergruppenführer Ratzinger is continually wanking himself off over the 'mystery' of suffering.
On a personal note, I suffered an accident that left me in extreme pain for years afterward (and still occasionally today) , and the months immediately following it were the worst pain I've ever experienced (I was on pethidine every 4 hours, or as needed). I can't imagine any pain being worse than what I experienced, but I can well believe that the pain from terminal illness is. And if that's the case (pace, Woody Allen), I don't want to be around when it happens.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Were you suffering extreme pain when you had the profile pic. taken Tim?
Take your point though as I suffered a broken neck some years back whilst
serving in the RN and the pain was unbearable for some 12 months on. Anybody
who has experienced this level of pain couldn't possibly be against some form
of euthanasia for those (of sane mind) who want to end their lives as and when
they deem fit.Why the f**k can't these religious arseholes keep their snouts out!
May 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
In my youth I spent a couple of years working in an old folks home. A couple of years ago my Mother had a series of strokes which made her bed-ridden and in constant pain. I have, sadly, seen elderly people suffering for years after a civilised society would have helped them on their way. People have the
right to die as they please. It really is one of the most important decisions a person can ever make.
Bastards like Saunders should be made to sign a disclaimer, if their faith is so strong, that should the worst happen then no medical intervention will be given to them. Most religious nutters are happy to spout that 'science does not have all the answers' but happily reach for the paracetamol when they have a headache. They would pray for a miracle, but, until it comes along, could they possibly have some morphine please? Hypocrites.
I genuinely hate violence, but, if I ever meet 'Dr' Saunders, I will happily punch him. A disgrace to his profession.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Religious issues aside, I'm not so hot on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Leaving a will in wich you say that you don't want to be kept alive by a machine and prefer to let go, ok; but to give anyone,legally, the power to decide to terminate you, well, I will think twice about doing such a thing. Not being terminated against my will is an issue, too.. What if doctors and relative conspire to simulate the circumstances that allow a legal euthanasia?
And, Mr Nutcake, what's this thing of "over fifty"? I'm fifty-three and not at all suicide-inclined. If you're so hot on suicide, suit yourself. as for me, I say, let those guys who bankrupted entire populations, or family destroyers drunken drivers, or death penalty tyrants like Ahmadinejad suicide first. There has rto be some decent people alive. I've got my problems, but by all mewans, if Dubyah's wonm't suicide, why shouòld I begin to consider it?
As a freethinker agnostic, I say: onlivion can wait
May 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Religious issues aside, I'm not so hot on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Leaving a will in wich you say that you don't want to be kept alive by a machine and prefer to let go, ok
May 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Dr Peter Saunders is a stain on his profession: his attack on Dr Nitschke, apart from being lies, was the last refuge of those bereft of a case – ad hominem. Saunders is a medical clown who has played a major part in persuading many doctors, including my wife, to support with cash, and join, the Medical Secular Society. Consider a current example of someone who is thinking about the practicalities of suicide: Chris Woodhead, who previously was a leading figure in education. Mr Woodhead is now dying, in his early 60's, and has revealed that he is dependent on his wife to support him. He is suffering from motor neuron disease and as the condition is irreversible he will, unless he kills himself, gradually suffocate. He said in a recent interview that he would, rather than endure that particular hell, drive himself off a cliff in his wheelchair. Who is Saunders to pontificate on this? ____I
May 6th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I think the overriding considerations here are the freedom of speech of Philip Nitschke and the freedom of other adults of sound mind to hear what he has to say. Why should persons of Dr Saunders ilk have any right to deny me knowledge that some other people already have? Its the old chestnut of censorship all over again. "Its alright for me to see this but it might be bad for you!"
May 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
As Nitschke, and many professionals involved in end of life care, argue, the important thing is the feeling that YOU are deciding how your life ends, not a doctor or bureaucrat. The experience in places where assisted suicide is legal is that most don't go through with it, but die happier because they controlled their end.
That's a point I know the CMF, along with the religiously-based hospice movement, just cannot accept. It is precisely their 'palliative care' that makes so many miserable, so an offer to increase such facilities is not an answer. Effectively, they're offering to patronise dying people even more while clocking up the per unit costs they get for dubious 'therapies', and denying every real 'choice'.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I have been writing to various politicians over the last few weeks to express my dismay at the prospect of Cardinal Murky O Connor's elevation to the House of Lords because of this very subject. You just know ( in fact he has admitted ) that he will oppose any changes in the law regarding assisted suicide. Asshole's like him and this Dr Saunders we can do without. They want people to suffer needlessly because of their fairytale beliefs, cheeky bastards!
May 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Putting aside an unfounded fear that if the govenrment do change the rules on this it will only be in response to the pensions crisis; I lean in favour of new laws governing assisted suicide in the UK. I have severe reservations that we, as a society will be able to discuss such issues in a rational way, also given our county's seeming inability to provide sensitive social programs without controversy due to localised negligence, I believe that any such changes should be designed to happen slowly with the maximum possible openness and oversight with regard to their operation in each individual case.
There is another issue here, that is extremely religious folk seem to believe that they have superior moral reasoning to that of people without faith and therefore crowbar their opinions into ethical debate, in the name of social or moral conservatism, skewing rational debate and causing more harm in the long run. I would agree with Prof.Grayling when he says that such groups deserve no more respect in these arguments than any other social organisation and very possibly less due to the dogmatic nature of their reasoning.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I would like to add that comments along the lines of Baroness Warnock suggesting a "Duty to Die" disturb me, as there is an implication that certain human life is less worthy than others, for example the dementia patient that is a burden to their family – maybe even that some lives are not worthy of state support and should be put to an end for the net benefit of society.
I realise this maybe a slippery slope argument, but imho there is a danger that at some point voluntary euthanasia for some may be warped into a subtle tool of social eugenics in the wrong political hands.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I agree Roger, any changes to the law would have to be very carefully worked out and then monitored, any objections or even opinions offered from a theological point of view are a waste of time and would only serve to get in the way of and delay serious rational discussions taking place.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Another aspect of this issue, concerning free speech and sly proselytising, is the activities of the religious mafia at the BBC. The gauletier running Thought for the Day states he will not allow those without faith to appear amongst the other bigots: game over. He decides he prefers to censor what he finds offensive. I wrote to the BBC – years ago – and was told, in effect, to "Fuck off, it is only five minutes a day, the rest of the programmes are all secular. " Around 6.20 am and for the first time, I came across somebody called Sara Kennedy on Radio 2 and this lady was a bit of an eye opener. She invited some vicar to smarm and patronise on the programme, and at least the 20 minutes I heard, was infused with a kind of smug religiosity. Where did she acquire the authority to propogate this religious mush. And she doesn't hesitate to indicate her opinions. Isn't she supposed to be playing music. -So much for the rest of the BBC being secular. If she can welcome her vicar buddies shouldn't the NSS be able to put up a speaker?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Is there any program on mainstream television or radio where ethical and moral issues are discussed without reference to religion?
It seems to me that this would be a good way to bring reasoned secular thinking to a wider audience; I understand that religion is a serious issue in society and that we may have to put up with if for some time, however, it would be liberating for non religious people to have a place to discuss aspects of human life and death without reference to superstition or people hiding behind an ancient dogmatic text.
Is it possible that there are not enough positive atheistic arguments made in public – maybe because we are often busy gasping at what religious folk get up to….
May 6th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
It is not surprising to see the Christian Medical Association appear on this issue, but rather disingenuous for their spokesperson to make an appeal to "support" for people in need. The Christian Medical Association, as a vicious, anti-feminist and anti-gay crusade, is directly and wilfully reponsible for undermining support for vulnerable adults from groups of which is does not approve.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
roger. Richard Dawkins has had to decline debates on TV with religious nutters as his prestige merely puffs their egos and they trash and pervert what he says anyway. It is a problem, I agree. Dawkins has had ignorant bishops discussing issues where their comments are so nonsensical (daft views of identical twins, I think) as to be biazarre but they "expect to be regarded with respect."
However, I think there is a place for less famous – or infamous as they see Dawkins – people to discuss these issues. Sara Kennedy seems to assume that no one who disagrees with her bishop buddy is worth a hearing. At least we should protest at this abuse of the BBC which is funded on pain of (ultimately) prison by our licence money.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to hang onto life until the very last possible moment whether their motives are religious or otherwise. What I do have a problem with is them wanting to force this upon me. I may want to bow out when I get really ancient and infirm I may not, but I believe that I should have the right to make that decision for myself. At the present time it is God botherers that are putting obstacles in the way of the law being changed to grant me that right.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
After four decades of not having such a right, Americans now have the right to visit Cuba. So far I have not heard anyone argue that granting people the right to visit Cuba will somehow deprive them of the right to choose not to do so.
Only the godphuqt would deny the terminally suffering the right to escape into death and thereby deprive their sadistic Sky Fuhrer of a means of getting its rocks off by savoring their agony.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Let me make a brief statement about me. I'm a person that likes to take a look at all angles before I make I make a decision about where I stand on an issue. I believe my posts are often times misunderstood as being contrary arguments from an opposing view when in fact they are a question, "have you considered this viewpoint?" So many human issues are gray, so many inintended consequences to consider. Having said that:
I am a person with a huge family history of cancer. My father hung on to his last minute, in horrible agony, because he thought it was his obligation to god. I have made it clear to my children that before I leave them with crippling debt, and before poison myself to an inch of death with chemicals and radiation, if the prognosis isn't promising, rather than buy the doctor a new Ferrari, I'll buy a shotgun at the pawnshop, find a tree to lean against at the park a couple of blocks away, and I will paint that tree with grey and red. I think it's really rude to blow your brains out where your children will be the ones who find you.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Stonyground and Tony. And there lies the problem. They want to decide when you decide to die. Do not believe all this crap about "they can do wonders with pain killing drugs in hospices" because that is true but what they cannot do is what they claim. Their motives are not to do with what they can alleviate; their motives are inspired by an irrational and vicious religious belief that they know that we must not hasten death. Not a loving wife who has cared for a husband in chronic pain; not a child who is in desperate chronic pain who is found lying under a warm radiator in a desperate attempt to find some slight relief; not someone suffering from what is known in the USA as Lou Gehrig's Disease and the rest of it. Meanwhile the same interfering scum are ready to support all kinds of military mayhem. I share Tony's anger. And I understand it. As for that twat of a Cardinal. What does he know about watching someone you love die in agony and slowly? It is nothing to do with them. Let them decide for themselves and let us do the same.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I wonder what is Saunder's religion? I certainly wouldn't want him caring for me.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
As an athiest, I've told my family frequently that, should the time come, 'throw the switch and get me burned'. Furthermore, no religious nonsense at my funeral. Sadly, they are all believers in a god and afterlife. So they have interpreted this as 'full religious ceremony and burial then?' I kid you not. The brainwashing has been done so well that they refuse to follow my wishes.
Hope this link helps:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Go.....and…
May 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Anyone who can describe biblical morality as "common sense" is urged to read Luke 16:9, which puts into Jesus' mouth a sermon that can be summarized, "Rob those who are no longer useful to you, and use the stolen money to bribe those who are in a position to do you good."__As for Exodus 20's prohibition of clearly antisocial behavior, what the translators have carefully concealed is that robbing, killing and perjuring were only prohibited when the victim was a fellow Jew. And there was no prohibition of extramarital fucking. Adultery meant extramarital impregnation, thereby robbing the victim of his right to pass on his inheritance to his biological heirs. The Priestly author of the oldest parts of Leviticus made that clear when he wrote (Lev. 18:20), "You're not to engage your compatriot's woman in carnal copulation in which semen is intromitted."
May 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The Priestly author of the oldest parts of Leviticus wrote (Lev. 18:20), "You're not to engage your compatriot's woman in carnal copulation in which semen is intromitted". The real meaning of adultery was still recognized when Thomas Mallory showed Lancelot and Guinevere fucking but not committing adultery, because they practised what Mallory's era called "courtly love", meaning fuckis pullis outis, or coitus interruptus. And to make quite clear that knocking up a married shiksa was not forbidden, P also wrote (Lev.20:10), "Any man who commits adultery with another man's woman, provided that his adultery is with a compatriot's woman [meaning fellow Jew] is to be executed."
May 7th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Persons who wish to comment on what is in the bible should consult my two volume, THE FULLY TRANSLATED BIBLE, which corrects the deliberate falsifications of other bibles, such as inventing a character called "God" where the Hebrew says "the gods", and includes intralinear notes where the biblical author's meaning needs clarification.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Nice plug Dr H. I had wondered where all this was leading!
May 7th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
My brother died from smoking induced lung cancer. He managed to stop two years before he died but the damage was done. Try spending a bit of time on one of these wards and see how important it is to cling on to the last second. Never mind the emphysema and all that went before. He wept and compared his terrible plight to the way my aged dog was "put to sleep when it was suffering."
May 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Apparently my response to an individual who delights in putting down persons more educated than himself was emailed to him without being posted to this site. So let me summarize the main points. I posted a response to a comment on the "not another Mary image" story. I was instructed that it was too long and needed to be broken into smaller pieces. I did that, but some technical glitch caused the pieces to be posted to a later story– this one. Since I had made statements that could not be proven in the available space, I cited a source. I do that where it seems necessary in order to preempt incompetent disputations.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am
This is why I am suggesting that the issues of the day could be discussed by secularists without reference to religion; it would be good to hear humanist discussion for it's own merits rather than a token counterbalance for theists.
Petition any one?
May 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Still, nice plug!
May 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
at least in the USA the "better palliative care" argument falls completely flat because our ridiculous drug laws result in physicians refusing to adequately medicate patients in severe pain. Several studies have revealed that many patients, whether terminal or non-terminal, are under medicated and are therefore in severe (unnecessary) pain much of the time. As far as the "slippery slope/duty to die" arguments are concerned, you may rest assured that it will be the government that introduces the duty to die and pushes that legislation. Experience in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal shows that these objections are unfounded.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Broga said:
"My brother died from smoking induced lung cancer."
Response: I used to have a friend who lost one leg and one lung to cancer. She never smoked a cigarette in her life. Now she's dead.
My father never smoked a cigarette in his life. He's dead too, from cancer.
Don't believe everything you read. I've outlived my father, and I smoke like a stovepipe. I have most of my life.
NL