Thanks for alert. If Parliament vote for this evil charter tomorrow, I will make it the day I decided never to return to the UK. Thanks to Nikki da Costa for the summary of main points.
Those who are selected for their appearance of wisdom and compassion to serve their nation, our political representatives at the highest level, betray their promise and contract.
They chose to betray. There is always a Judas and their fate awaits.
What a horror.
Thank you for this information and for your honest and caring informant.
I wrote to my MP a couple of months ago ,via email, asking her to reconsider her stance over this immoral dangerous bill dressed up as compassion for the dying. Nothing nada in response. I saw that one of Leadbeater articles was supported by the Fabian society, is that a clue ? Ester Rantzen who campaigned strongly for this bill is still alive nearly 3 years later ,does she not now have any concerns?
My view on assistance in dying is that the act of having at least as much compassion for people as we do for our pets should be decriminalized. I don't see anything morally wrong with making human deaths, once they're imminent, as peaceful and as painless as possible. Morally, to set the terms of one's life includes the right to set the terms of one's death, or at least to designate those terms, assuming it's at all possible to follow someone's end-of-life instructions.
Politicians--narcissistic psychopaths almost by definition--and their adjuncts are the last people who should be setting standards for euthanasia. The UK's assisted dying bill is proof that they're a menace and absolutely unfit to even be part of the conversation. They should be forbidden to have anything to do with the topic. Death is as intimately personal a decision as those of one's life--or should be, if humanity could get over this non-stop collectivization of everything. Ideally the "medical professionals" who recently outed themselves as sadistic sociopaths should be excluded from the discussion, too. Private groups that currently exist seem to spend a lot of time trying to get laws changed and bills passed; i.e., they're enmeshing the government inextricably in something it has no business even taking notice of. But if euthanasia were decriminalized and 100% privatized, those same groups could spend their energy setting their own standards instead of lobbying politicians. They could then list doctors who were willing to work within a given group's standards, and people could designate the group whose standards and protocols they wanted to have applied to them. Most would probably have a range of options people could designate.
I know someone whose best friend committed suicide. He waited until his caregiver left on an errand, then shot himself in the head. I don't know how anyone can contemplate the caregiver finding him, and his friends' mental anguish when they learned of his desperation, and think that that's in any way better than the ability to plan a quiet, humane, peaceful death.
Thanks. Of course, I am sure you realise that it's perfectly possible to both agree with your sentiments AND oppose this specific abomination of a proposed act of parliament.
Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder as acceptable. It is all about profit in any way it can be made, whilst reducing the 'surplus' population. As evil and the love of money lurks in the hearts of mankind is unrealistic to think of 'standards' in death dealing.
So many have been driven to despair by the very people who seek to profit from such despair. The COVID 19 farce showed us that if we weren't aware before.
It's not murder any more than euthanizing a terminally ill or injured pet is abuse. It's an expression of love, compassion, and the moral imperative to end suffering *on the sufferer's request* when treatment options have been exhausted or don't exist. Murder has a very specific legal definition, and the humane euthanasia of people who request it doesn't meet that definition. The standards are already in place among the private pro-euthanasia groups. It's their whole raison d'être. It's what they're misguidedly trying to codify into law, when the obvious fact that the kakistocracy wants people dead is the best possible argument for putting lives out of the government's reach.
I do not equate profit with evil. On the contrary. Funeral directors, cemeteries, estate planners: They all make money because people die. They also make terrible losses a little more bearable through formal, ritualized ceremonies which, to the extent that it's possible, help people achieve "closure." They don't do it for free and they don't increase their profits with extra-curricular slaughter.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?...Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?"
Firstly I said "Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder as acceptable." I did not say Euthanasia is murder.
Secondly I said "...the love of money...", not "money". Love of money combined with evil hearts and minds drives this agenda for euthanasia as it does abortion. It also drives the vaccines/pharmaceutical industry. Healthy people do not make good customers.
Once they have extracted what they can from you living they will take what they can at death, whatever form that takes.
I read it and I read it properly. You can try to ret-con what you meant, but there’s only one way to read “Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder” and it’s that the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. That’s both ridiculous and contradicted by the facts. For as long as humans have had livestock, let alone beloved pets, they’ve been able to tell the difference between torturing an animal to death and humanely killing it to relieve its suffering, and to assign moral opprobrium to the one and virtue to the other. There’s no slippery slope. There’s no moral ambiguity. Vets don’t sicken or injure pets so they can score a few bucks by euthanizing them, and the owners’ knowledge that they were able to give their pets a peaceful, planned death, out of love and compassion, is one of the few mitigating aspects of such a loss. Sometimes it’s the only one. Why would you deny that option to human beings?
You’ve said nothing about your proposed alternative once you’ve eliminated people’s ability to choose the circumstances of their deaths, maybe because preventing that choice necessarily means letting people suffer to death, or the willingness to legally persecute anyone who dares to prevent more suffering of someone they love. You want to maintain the criminalization of people’s decisions about how and when they end their lives. Why? Out of some cynical, hypothetical possibility that someone somewhere might exchange a buck or two? I told you that funeral directors and cemetery owners provide a valuable service, including an important psychological one, but they don’t work for free. Or do you think that they should? Are they profiteering from death? Why aren’t they mass murdering and serial killing to boost their clientele?
Because the decision of when and how to die is an integral part of one’s right to life, the issue of euthanasia is one of freedom or slavery: A person either has the right to decide the course of his life, which includes its end, or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t then he’s not free in any other sense of the word. And I’ll tell you something else: The flip side to picking slavery, to letting a third party prevent people from deciding the time and place of their deaths, is that eventually a third party will decide that it’s time for them to die. Decriminalizing euthanasia and getting the government completely out of it presupposes rational standards for its application—otherwise no one would use it—and upholds the individual’s right to life.
As for the love of money, “Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.” To love is to value. To love money is to know and value its nature, which is that of a symbol and measure of productivity, and a means of voluntary cooperation between people. It’s what makes civilization possible between civilized humans: It’s the opposite of force. The alternative to living by trade, which rewards and demands reason, productivity, and the creation of values, is for people to exist as savages and looters, with coercion as their only means of dealing with one another. Are you really here to argue that it’s wrong to love the principle of voluntarism, which makes peace possible between humans, and to love money, the means of establishing it? Are you really here to argue for less compassion, less kindness, less freedom, and more compulsion? Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between Pfizer and a terminal cancer patient begging for release?
No you did not read it properly, you made your own assumptions and twist what I said.
Animals and humans not the same and cannot be compared. As to “Vets don’t sicken or injure pets so they can score a few bucks by euthanizing them”, well many do harm them with toxic vaccines don’t they, like doctors they need patients.
As to funeral directors and cemetery owners “Why aren’t they mass murdering and serial killing to boost their clientele?” are you not aware of the buying up of funeral services etc. into mega corporations? They don’t need to carry out mass murder and serial killing; the pharmaceutical and medical industry does that. You should be well aware of that by now.
Re “Because the decision of when and how to die is an integral part of one’s right to life”. We have no right to life as we do not choose to be born, nor do we have any inherent right to choose when we die, but we do have a responsibility to love , to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves.
The government is there to protect citizens against the unscrupulous and assuming euthanasia services can be completely disconnected from government is naïve.
It assumes that there are no circumstances where an individual has been harmed and brought to a point where they wish to die by those who would benefit from that death. This is what has been going on at an accelerated pace with the COVID vaccines and other assaults on us.
The government is there to protect people from such circumstances so must have the option to investigate. Weakening this position as legalising euthanasia will do is a bad move.
Over my lifetime we have gone from murder being a capital offense with the death penalty to a position where people may kill others as a business. So yes it is a slippery slope, and you are naïve to think otherwise.
As to the love of money I don’t need a lecture from you on money as a tool of trade. I am talking about avarice, greed and that is what is ultimately driving this push for euthanasia being legalised. It is wrapped up with warm words of compassion, kindness etc. but it is a deceit.
If we were truly compassionate and kind we would not be poisoning people in the first place via pharmaceuticals etc..
And are you really incapable of seeing that Pfizer and other pharma companies have been the prime cause of cancers due to their toxic products? How many terminal cancer patients are where they are because of pharma’s harm?
I didn’t say that animals and humans are the same. I said that humans should be treated with at least as much consideration, compassion, and respect that we give to livestock to end suffering.
I’m not having any further discussion with someone who pretends to give a rat’s ass about cancer, greed, and pharma while condemning real people to pain and suffering and explicitly denying that humans even have a right to life. If there’s no right to life, then what the fuck do you care whether Pfizer causes cancer and profits from it? Animals and humans aren’t the same? By your argument, such as it is, humans should get worse treatment. That’s depraved. You’re incapable of grasping principles and incapable of engaging in debate without introducing irrelevancies and dead ends. I’m done trying to play tennis with someone who can’t even get the ball across the net. You should probably get some help for that sociopathy problem, too. If there’s anyone you call a “loved one” he should run for the nearest exit.
Thanks for alert. If Parliament vote for this evil charter tomorrow, I will make it the day I decided never to return to the UK. Thanks to Nikki da Costa for the summary of main points.
Replying to my own reply - 314/291. Close but not enough. So 6/20/25 is the point of no return. How can 314 Parliamentarians be so stupid?
Those who are selected for their appearance of wisdom and compassion to serve their nation, our political representatives at the highest level, betray their promise and contract.
They chose to betray. There is always a Judas and their fate awaits.
What a horror.
Thank you for this information and for your honest and caring informant.
I too avoid the land of my birth.
I wrote to my MP a couple of months ago ,via email, asking her to reconsider her stance over this immoral dangerous bill dressed up as compassion for the dying. Nothing nada in response. I saw that one of Leadbeater articles was supported by the Fabian society, is that a clue ? Ester Rantzen who campaigned strongly for this bill is still alive nearly 3 years later ,does she not now have any concerns?
Many thanks Jonathan. It is an evil, diabolical bill indeed dressed up as compassion. State sanctioned murder for profit as always.
I did my own post back in November last year. I went to meeting with my MP who seems to be against it thankfully.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/assisted-dying-bill-and-kim-leadbeater?utm_source=publication-search
It may seem bizarre but 'eek me a death bill crime' is an anagram of Kim Michele Leadbeater, her full name.
While I am at it I will attach this link too. State sanctioned murder is being pushed at both ends of life.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/tonia-antoniazzi-diana-johnson-and?utm_source=publication-search
I do consider that at the bottom of it all is profit as much as it is eugenics.
My view on assistance in dying is that the act of having at least as much compassion for people as we do for our pets should be decriminalized. I don't see anything morally wrong with making human deaths, once they're imminent, as peaceful and as painless as possible. Morally, to set the terms of one's life includes the right to set the terms of one's death, or at least to designate those terms, assuming it's at all possible to follow someone's end-of-life instructions.
Politicians--narcissistic psychopaths almost by definition--and their adjuncts are the last people who should be setting standards for euthanasia. The UK's assisted dying bill is proof that they're a menace and absolutely unfit to even be part of the conversation. They should be forbidden to have anything to do with the topic. Death is as intimately personal a decision as those of one's life--or should be, if humanity could get over this non-stop collectivization of everything. Ideally the "medical professionals" who recently outed themselves as sadistic sociopaths should be excluded from the discussion, too. Private groups that currently exist seem to spend a lot of time trying to get laws changed and bills passed; i.e., they're enmeshing the government inextricably in something it has no business even taking notice of. But if euthanasia were decriminalized and 100% privatized, those same groups could spend their energy setting their own standards instead of lobbying politicians. They could then list doctors who were willing to work within a given group's standards, and people could designate the group whose standards and protocols they wanted to have applied to them. Most would probably have a range of options people could designate.
I know someone whose best friend committed suicide. He waited until his caregiver left on an errand, then shot himself in the head. I don't know how anyone can contemplate the caregiver finding him, and his friends' mental anguish when they learned of his desperation, and think that that's in any way better than the ability to plan a quiet, humane, peaceful death.
Thanks. Of course, I am sure you realise that it's perfectly possible to both agree with your sentiments AND oppose this specific abomination of a proposed act of parliament.
Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder as acceptable. It is all about profit in any way it can be made, whilst reducing the 'surplus' population. As evil and the love of money lurks in the hearts of mankind is unrealistic to think of 'standards' in death dealing.
So many have been driven to despair by the very people who seek to profit from such despair. The COVID 19 farce showed us that if we weren't aware before.
It's not murder any more than euthanizing a terminally ill or injured pet is abuse. It's an expression of love, compassion, and the moral imperative to end suffering *on the sufferer's request* when treatment options have been exhausted or don't exist. Murder has a very specific legal definition, and the humane euthanasia of people who request it doesn't meet that definition. The standards are already in place among the private pro-euthanasia groups. It's their whole raison d'être. It's what they're misguidedly trying to codify into law, when the obvious fact that the kakistocracy wants people dead is the best possible argument for putting lives out of the government's reach.
I do not equate profit with evil. On the contrary. Funeral directors, cemeteries, estate planners: They all make money because people die. They also make terrible losses a little more bearable through formal, ritualized ceremonies which, to the extent that it's possible, help people achieve "closure." They don't do it for free and they don't increase their profits with extra-curricular slaughter.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?...Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?"
Read what I said properly.
Firstly I said "Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder as acceptable." I did not say Euthanasia is murder.
Secondly I said "...the love of money...", not "money". Love of money combined with evil hearts and minds drives this agenda for euthanasia as it does abortion. It also drives the vaccines/pharmaceutical industry. Healthy people do not make good customers.
Once they have extracted what they can from you living they will take what they can at death, whatever form that takes.
I read it and I read it properly. You can try to ret-con what you meant, but there’s only one way to read “Euthanasia being decriminalized gets us to accepting murder” and it’s that the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. That’s both ridiculous and contradicted by the facts. For as long as humans have had livestock, let alone beloved pets, they’ve been able to tell the difference between torturing an animal to death and humanely killing it to relieve its suffering, and to assign moral opprobrium to the one and virtue to the other. There’s no slippery slope. There’s no moral ambiguity. Vets don’t sicken or injure pets so they can score a few bucks by euthanizing them, and the owners’ knowledge that they were able to give their pets a peaceful, planned death, out of love and compassion, is one of the few mitigating aspects of such a loss. Sometimes it’s the only one. Why would you deny that option to human beings?
You’ve said nothing about your proposed alternative once you’ve eliminated people’s ability to choose the circumstances of their deaths, maybe because preventing that choice necessarily means letting people suffer to death, or the willingness to legally persecute anyone who dares to prevent more suffering of someone they love. You want to maintain the criminalization of people’s decisions about how and when they end their lives. Why? Out of some cynical, hypothetical possibility that someone somewhere might exchange a buck or two? I told you that funeral directors and cemetery owners provide a valuable service, including an important psychological one, but they don’t work for free. Or do you think that they should? Are they profiteering from death? Why aren’t they mass murdering and serial killing to boost their clientele?
Because the decision of when and how to die is an integral part of one’s right to life, the issue of euthanasia is one of freedom or slavery: A person either has the right to decide the course of his life, which includes its end, or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t then he’s not free in any other sense of the word. And I’ll tell you something else: The flip side to picking slavery, to letting a third party prevent people from deciding the time and place of their deaths, is that eventually a third party will decide that it’s time for them to die. Decriminalizing euthanasia and getting the government completely out of it presupposes rational standards for its application—otherwise no one would use it—and upholds the individual’s right to life.
As for the love of money, “Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.” To love is to value. To love money is to know and value its nature, which is that of a symbol and measure of productivity, and a means of voluntary cooperation between people. It’s what makes civilization possible between civilized humans: It’s the opposite of force. The alternative to living by trade, which rewards and demands reason, productivity, and the creation of values, is for people to exist as savages and looters, with coercion as their only means of dealing with one another. Are you really here to argue that it’s wrong to love the principle of voluntarism, which makes peace possible between humans, and to love money, the means of establishing it? Are you really here to argue for less compassion, less kindness, less freedom, and more compulsion? Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between Pfizer and a terminal cancer patient begging for release?
No you did not read it properly, you made your own assumptions and twist what I said.
Animals and humans not the same and cannot be compared. As to “Vets don’t sicken or injure pets so they can score a few bucks by euthanizing them”, well many do harm them with toxic vaccines don’t they, like doctors they need patients.
As to funeral directors and cemetery owners “Why aren’t they mass murdering and serial killing to boost their clientele?” are you not aware of the buying up of funeral services etc. into mega corporations? They don’t need to carry out mass murder and serial killing; the pharmaceutical and medical industry does that. You should be well aware of that by now.
Re “Because the decision of when and how to die is an integral part of one’s right to life”. We have no right to life as we do not choose to be born, nor do we have any inherent right to choose when we die, but we do have a responsibility to love , to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves.
The government is there to protect citizens against the unscrupulous and assuming euthanasia services can be completely disconnected from government is naïve.
It assumes that there are no circumstances where an individual has been harmed and brought to a point where they wish to die by those who would benefit from that death. This is what has been going on at an accelerated pace with the COVID vaccines and other assaults on us.
The government is there to protect people from such circumstances so must have the option to investigate. Weakening this position as legalising euthanasia will do is a bad move.
Over my lifetime we have gone from murder being a capital offense with the death penalty to a position where people may kill others as a business. So yes it is a slippery slope, and you are naïve to think otherwise.
As to the love of money I don’t need a lecture from you on money as a tool of trade. I am talking about avarice, greed and that is what is ultimately driving this push for euthanasia being legalised. It is wrapped up with warm words of compassion, kindness etc. but it is a deceit.
If we were truly compassionate and kind we would not be poisoning people in the first place via pharmaceuticals etc..
And are you really incapable of seeing that Pfizer and other pharma companies have been the prime cause of cancers due to their toxic products? How many terminal cancer patients are where they are because of pharma’s harm?
I didn’t say that animals and humans are the same. I said that humans should be treated with at least as much consideration, compassion, and respect that we give to livestock to end suffering.
I’m not having any further discussion with someone who pretends to give a rat’s ass about cancer, greed, and pharma while condemning real people to pain and suffering and explicitly denying that humans even have a right to life. If there’s no right to life, then what the fuck do you care whether Pfizer causes cancer and profits from it? Animals and humans aren’t the same? By your argument, such as it is, humans should get worse treatment. That’s depraved. You’re incapable of grasping principles and incapable of engaging in debate without introducing irrelevancies and dead ends. I’m done trying to play tennis with someone who can’t even get the ball across the net. You should probably get some help for that sociopathy problem, too. If there’s anyone you call a “loved one” he should run for the nearest exit.
Well, their intentions MUST be very good, right?
Avoid all potential ideas of suffering at the beginnings of life and, well, all through out life.
Boy we have the perfect drug for you !!
100 years from now, all new people, but this is not a great path we are on.
Depopulation agenda in plain sight!