British govt. medical ethics "expert" calls for a license to kill

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock. The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain. She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society. The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as "immoral" and "barbaric", but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters. Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain's leading moral philosopher, chaired a landmark Government committee in the 1980s that established the law on fertility treatment and embryo research. A prominent supporter of euthanasia, she has previously suggested that pensioners who do not want to become a burden on their carers should be helped to die.

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

I suppose that awful Sarah Palin will want to accuse her of calling for "death panels."

[MicroBalrog]

So, British people, care to put this in context for us? How important is this Baroness Warnock, really?

*re-read*

"Leading... moral philosopher?"

I sort of hope this isn't true. Because if it is... what.

[vaskidmark]

"Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives" and ' "The 84-year-old" Baroness Warnock' probably should not be placed that close together in a news story. 

I also have problems not giggling when reading "Lady Warnock, a former headmistress who went on to become Britain's leading moral philosopher".  Sorry, but thanks to a certain propensity for pulp fiction during my youth the terms "headmistress" and "moral philosopher" have some connotations for me that remind me of very bad soft pron and science fiction.  YMMV.

stay safe.

skidmark

[LadySmith]

I'm hoping she's more along the lines of our own Jesse Jackson, some sort of "spiritual advisor" that no one takes seriously.  :|

[Iain]

The opinions of one British member of the House of Lords, an existentialist moral philosopher (can we say - guaranteed to say controversial things) in an article that is nearly a year old. The reason it has been dug up - to 'prove' that death panels are real and the British medical system is offing the demented. It proves neither of course.

[Perd Hapley]

There is certainly no need to "prove" whether "death panels" are real.  They were included in one version of a health care bill, but removed due to public outcry. 

Of course, "death panel" is only one way of interpreting a body that did not go by that name.   

[Sindawe]

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves....Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service."

Hmmmm....  As I recall, some of the Baroness's peers put up quite a fight 60 some years ago against a group of chaps from the continent who held the same views.

[HankB]

. . . she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

If someone "put down" an elderly family member of mine - even through "rationing" - I guarantee you that they wouldn't survive a month longer themselves. 

[lee n. field]

the terms "headmistress" and "moral philosopher" have some connotations for me that remind me of very bad soft pron and science fiction.  YMMV.

Hmmm.  "Fairy" Hardcastle from That Hideous Strength who, IRRC, was a sadist with a taste for young and fluffy women.

[Doggy Daddy]

an article that is nearly a year old.

So, we're judging relevancy on the basis of age?  I think that's part of the point here.
Oh, Christianity is over 2000 years old... must be really irrelevant, huh?   :rolleyes:

DD

[Iain]

So, we're judging relevancy on the basis of age?  I think that's part of the point here.
Oh, Christianity is over 2000 years old... must be really irrelevant, huh?   :rolleyes:

DD

Eh?

The point is - why has this been dug up now?

I'd suggest that someone dug it up to evoke exactly the same response as Sindawe gave, and that this response would reflect on the public view of the NHS and thus the healthcare debate.

From this side of the pond it really doesn't look like many are having a debate - many are just looking for a reason to call each other Nazis. See youtube for video of woman calling a former Israeli citizen a Nazi for suggesting that maybe the Israeli system isn't terrible.

[Hawkmoon]

I suppose that awful Sarah Palin will want to accuse her of calling for "death panels."

I don't think so. Sarah can read. There's nothing in the article about panels.



Just licenses. I wonder if doctors will line up to see who gets to be Dr. 007?

[MechAg94]

Eh?

The point is - why has this been dug up now?

I'd suggest that someone dug it up to evoke exactly the same response as Sindawe gave, and that this response would reflect on the public view of the NHS and thus the healthcare debate.

From this side of the pond it really doesn't look like many are having a debate - many are just looking for a reason to call each other Nazis. See youtube for video of woman calling a former Israeli citizen a Nazi for suggesting that maybe the Israeli system isn't terrible.

If you dislike the premise of the thread, why are you commenting? 

IMO, the point of posting stuff like this as that people who believe in euthanasia and such things are out there.  I don't think most people would stand for it if they had a choice, but govt run systems often make choices difficult. 

[El Tejon]

No doubt the Baroness will run for Gov. of Colorado.

[Perd Hapley]

Iain,

I was hipped to this article by a mention of it on right-wing hate radio.  I didn't realize it was a year old, but I'm not sure how that makes it any less current or relevant.  I don't know that anyone said it proves anything.  If it reflects poorly on the concept of government control of health care, then it reflects poorly on the concept of government control of health care.  And someone "dug it up"?  Oh my!  How dare they? 

[Iain]

Only it doesn't reflect on anything but the opinions of one member of the House of Lords who isn't involved in making policy. Of course it was mentioned on talk radio, or Drudge or something like that, I'd guessed that much.

So why is the opinion of one British academic, who did some work for the government in the 70s and 80s and was made a life peer, suddenly being mentioned on talk radio in America one year after she made the comments, which have not been acted upon in any way by the NHS?

Had I been aware that she had made those comments last September I'd have been vaguely interested, but realised that they were irrelevant to government policy, especially when this government refuses to rule out prosecution for people who assist relatives in going to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland.

The Economist said it rather well a couple of weeks back:

BLAME it on the weather or the silly-season absence of more serious news, but arguments about America’s health care have become a touch delirious over the past couple of weeks. People have accused each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death or even un-American; a sad substitute for a thoughtful debate about a complicated subject that intimately affects every citizen and ties up some $2 trillion a year, a seventh of the world’s largest economy.

Now the distemper has spread across the Atlantic. The enemies of Barack Obama’s health-reform plans have no more potent weapon, it seems, than to accuse him of seeking to replicate Britain’s dreaded National Health Service on American soil.

This is just more of the same.

[Perd Hapley]

Again, I'm not sure how the age of the article makes it less worthy of reading.  If it were fifty years old, perhaps.  But one year old, and bringing it up is now some kind of sneaky little trick?  Please explain. 


The comments from the Economist (from two weeks ago, mind you), are rather embarrassing from such a fine magazine.  Thanks for reminding me, I meant to post one or two articles from their latest.  But this tripe is quite silly.  They blame the "silly season" on a lack of serious news, then gloss on the importance of the very issue Americans are making much of.  It is to laugh.

Democratic proposals will seriously harm our health care systems (we have more than one, for now), in a way that will be very difficult to repair.  That's quite enough to arouse our righteous indignation, thank you.  If they don't understand that, let them keep mum while the grown-ups are talking.