Something something dark side
Got stuff to write about today. Should really comment on Henry McLeish’s cutting observations about the No campaign, or mock the Daily Record’s hilarious attempt to pretend Johann Lamont’s been driving Labour action over Falkirk all along. But I can’t seem to put sentences together, because I’m still trembling a bit after watching this.
It’s hard to relate it to the Scottish independence debate, except to note that where the US goes, the UK is rarely far behind. (In much the same way that a devolved Scotland ends up following the policies of England within a few years, because without control of your own revenues, taxation and welfare there’s only so much you can juggle a decreasing budget to try to offset the effects.)
I don’t want a “special relationship” any more. I want out.
That was excruciating just to watch. How can civilised people do that to other human beings?
None of the answers to that question will make you feel better.
You don’t have to wait for us to catch up: this is the same way the UK force feeds prisoners.
Horrific!
How can civilised people do that to other human beings?
The general answer to that question is: they can’t, therefore either they aren’t civilised people or they don’t recognise the people they’re doing it to as human beings. Either condition is sufficient to create shocking behaviour, while both together tend to create atrocities.
and will that be done in our name in an independent Scotland?
That’s horrible. I couldn’t even watch the whole thing, and I imagine it’s even worse if you’ve got the sound on to hear him screaming.
All that business with Evo Morales’ plane being messed around with by EU countries because the US thought Edward Snowden was onboard made me think that, even as an independent member of the EU, we’ll still have to watch ourselves if we don’t want to become mere puppets of the US state. Our refusal to back down on Megrahi gives me hope that we won’t, but we need to keep an eye on things.
Speaking of Bolivia, how great is the Latin American countries’ rallying round each other like they’ve done? There’s the true meaning of “better together” – individual nations backing each other up because they share a common outlook, not because they’re compelled to by political union.
Horrific and shocking that any Nation calling itself ‘civilised’ can do this. Isn’t this torture carried out in a foreign country simply to escape the civil laws of the ‘land of the free’?
Just who are the ‘terrists’ as called by Bush junior?
Can’t watch it now, at work.
Consider what the British Empire gave the indigenous peoples of other countries (the bits in between law, railways and sanitation) such as casual slaughter, torture, concentration camps, genocide, Rule 303, while the Victorians went to church every Sunday to the tune of Jerusalem and thinking of how they were the most enlightened people on the planet: then this obscenity and the British collusion of such acts of barbarity comes as no surprise. It’s part of being a Royalist and an Imperialist which most Tories, Ukippers and BNP folk are. When the Americans needed a base in the Indian Ocean as part of their global military expansionist policy (empire building as it was once called), the British government rented them Diego Garcia. Of course the 2000 plus native population were then removed to foreign islands hundreds of miles away without compensation, signed off by the cuddly Wilson (Benn, Healey, Jenkins et al) government in 1968.
In 2003 the Blair government sanctioned the containment of prisoners from Afghanistan on Diego Garcia where they would be ‘assessed’ and prepared for transport to Guantanamo Bay knowing full well that the CIA were present to carry out unique ‘assessments’ of the prisoners without any formal trial or due process. This is the evil of the Special Relationship today, but it is also known locally within the UK as the Union Dividend. We need to get as far away as possible from these black-souled warmongers and the State that breeds and shelters them.
“You don’t have to wait for us to catch up: this is the same way the UK force feeds prisoners.”
Not quite accurate – the same way the UK force-feeds prisoners who have been deemed mentally incompetent, eg Ian Brady. As far as I know ordinary prisoners in jail can starve themselves if they choose. And, y’know, we still don’t lock people up without trial for 11 years either. But yes, the direction of travel is clear.
and will that be done in our name in an independent Scotland?
I suppose we have to decide whether it’s worse to subject prisoners to that or to allow them to starve themselves to death. Societally, we have a slightly more mature and compassionate take on criminal justice than the US (or the UK as a whole), but it can still be difficult to accept people ‘cheating justice’ by committing suicide rather than serving their time (and, no, that isn’t relevant to Guantanamo, but I’m assuming we wouldn’t have equivalent prisoners). What’s important in a democracy is the informed consent of the people for either force feeding or allowing slow suicide, applied to people imprisoned by a fair and trusted criminal justice system.
the same way the UK force-feeds prisoners who have been deemed mentally incompetent,
Oh, that’s all right then. So long as someone has deemed them suitable for brutal treatment.
And, y’know, we still don’t lock people up without trial for 11 years either.
We tried, with the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, but we only managed four years of that.
“Oh, that’s all right then. So long as someone has deemed them suitable for brutal treatment.”
I’m not defending it in any way. I think it’s utterly disgusting, as I’d have thought the post made abundantly clear. Merely a factual correction, because I’m picky about accuracy.
Maybe sales of Jack Straw’s autobiography will get a wee fillip from all this attention, but I daresay he doesn’t devote an entire chapter to his role in misleading the House of Commons over the existence of ‘rendition’.
Blair was always so preoccupied with his ‘legacy’, right?
The look on that man’s face – that’s his legacy.
How can civilised people do that to other human beings?
Jiggsbro said:
The general answer to that question is: they can’t, therefore either they aren’t civilised people or they don’t recognise the people they’re doing it to as human beings. Either condition is sufficient to create shocking behaviour, while both together tend to create atrocities.
This. I watched the clip thinking about the people who were subjecting him to the procedure and what must have been going through their heads. I know that I would not be able to do that to anyone. The brutalising, alienating effects on the perpetrators of these procedures doesn’t bear thinking about. I suppose we know already that they don’t regard Guantanamo detainees as human beings, but… seriously… after you have ‘served’ in Guantanamo, do you come out and start living your life in normal society? That is worrying.
(Any discussion of force-feeding always makes me think of the suffragists on hunger strike, who were routinely force fed in prison, presumably by similar methods)
“but it can still be difficult to accept people ‘cheating justice’ by committing suicide rather than serving their time”
This is not a comment directed towards you JiggsBro, because I have no idea what your stance on the death penalty is. But that quote reminds me of the recent Ian Brady story where certain people, who would ordinarily be screaming for the death penalty to be brought back to get rid of him, suddenly find themselves screaming that under no circumstances must this person be allowed to starve themselves to death.
I’ve never really understood it, this “you’ll die when WE decide” kind of attitude. However, if I ever found myself in a situation where I was going to be put to death, I’d certainly use it to my advantage.
“Right, it’s off to the chair for you!”
“Great stuff, I was going to kill myself, but you’re saving me the bother.”
“Aha! Nice try boyo, but you’re not getting away with it that easy! Life imprisonment for you!”
The whole ‘good/bad British Empire’ argument is one the Naysayers seem ignorant or wilfully obscure about. No-one could credibly argue that, yes, being part of the UK has meant we reap the benefits in many ways, good education health care etc, which is the Unionists’ main point. When tackled about the ways it has been achieved – military occupation, genocide etc – they always come back with ‘Ah, but the Scots did it too!’ (Meaning ‘youse are guilty too, so best just stick together!’) Similar to the points they raise about Blair and Brown being Scottish. they seem to miss the point that it’s nothing to do with being Scottish, English or any other kind of ‘ish’, it’s whether or not one co-operates with this system. I’m grateful for the lifestyle I have, but not ‘proud’ about the way in which it was achieved. After all, there were many scientific advancements made by the Nazis, doesn’t mean we should return to the 3rd Reich (I’m confident the vast majority of folk would agree with that statement). I sometimes wonder how other nationalities REALLY see us.
“That’s horrible. I couldn’t even watch the whole thing, and I imagine it’s even worse if you’ve got the sound on”
Much, much worse.
“The look on that man’s face – that’s his legacy.”
And remember, that’s the look on the face of a man who’s doing it once, for a stunt (of the best possible kind), and who knows he can make it stop any time he wants.
@bawheid bragg
After living in Southern Africa for 30 odd years I can assure you British/English is not a nationality you advertise. The Scots on the other hand seem to get a much better reception.
@Rev-
I didn’t realise it was a ‘stunt’.
But I still don’t want to watch it.
Here’s the late Christopher Hitchens’ account of being waterboarded:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
“I’ve never really understood it, this “you’ll die when WE decide” kind of attitude.”
An eminent QC with political connections told me that he was once lobbied by a group of pro-lifers who wanted his help in amending/removing the abortion laws. A few months later he was lobbied by a group seeking the return of the death penalty. He recognised a lot of the faces from the previous group.
Yes, they are odd people.
” I sometimes wonder how other nationalities REALLY see us.”
When abroad it’s usually worth making clear that you’re not American or English, although I don’t know if people have a good opinion of Scots or if they just don’t know where to file us.
The Irish playwright Samuel Beckett lived in France. Whenever he was asked if he was English, he would reply au contraire. That’s what I do when I’m over there – it gets a laugh. The Spanish is al contrario, and I’ve used that a bit as well. My sister, who spent most of her working life in Italy, would always answer the question with a very dry Scherza! (you’re joking).
Any other suggestions for the Scottish traveller’s phrasebook?
On the subject (vaguely) of human rights and treatment of prisoners. Now that the UK has deported Abu Quatada, can we get to keep our human rights please? Because the continued presence of Abu Quatada was the excuse the home secretary put forward for agitating for their removal.
@Vronsky
“What are you having?” seems to buy peace for most travellers to Scotland 🙂
I always first got to know their word for ‘Scot’ – the immediate change in attitude towards me was magical.
@Vronsky
I can only go by personal experience. I do not have a pronounced Scottish accent, I was brought up in the North east of England, and use simpler English in my work overseas. My experience is that once they know you’re Scottish they want to shake your hand, and have a huge smile on their faces. “Oh, Scottish, great!”
Just my experience in all European countries, most of the Balkans, several former USSR states, and a few African countries.
Saw this the other day, it’s probably even worse!
Why must these ‘informative’ ‘you tube’ programmes try to force us listen to what’s being (too rapidly) said or to that bloody music?
Just what is their objective?
This is disgusting as well and no music!
But yes, the direction of travel is clear.
Unfortunately, the British state used to force feed IRA hunger strikers too, as well as ignore their protest actions of smearing excrement on their walls, leaving them to live in it. Thus for all the good that Tony Blair (and John Major before him) did in lessening the brutality of the Irish experience, it will forever be a stain on his record that the State quickly allowed the same brutality to return, but this time directed at Muslims, the majority of whom are actually completely innocent but the US and UK dare not release them…
I did a lot, not all I could as you can always do more, but where I could I tried to say “Not in my name.” Still, the horrors continue… Met an Egyptian chap in Bristol yesterday; I told him he should be proud of his people, as terrible as the situation may be, they still took to the streets and forced change in the face of much less pressing political abuse. Would that the people in the West would do the same.
Why must these ‘informative’ ‘you tube’ programmes try to force us listen to what’s being (too rapidly) said or to that bloody music?
Just what is their objective?
The music may not be the video posters’ fault. I’m not sure which video you’re watching when you commented thus (I did listen to the force feeding one, with full sound on; I rather think sacrificing my own peace of mind is the least I could do) but if someone lays claim to the copyright of a soundtrack, YouTube will often replace the audio on a video with a set of generic tunes. A very common one YouTube uses is Nine Inch Nails “Ghosts” album, as it was put in the Public Domain… which often leads to questions about what NIN are doing in the video in the comments.
I’ve not had it done to any of my small selection of gaming related videos, but I did have one of my recordings of a demonstration I attended flagged by EMI Music Publishing for, would you believe, someone singing “We Shall Overcome” live…?
They even kindly marked the time (3:14) they were claiming from. However I seem to have been allowed to keep the audio to this date.
In Scotland, force feeding can only be done legally, if the person is detained under The Mental Health Act, (not sure what the up to date section is), and even then it has to be agreed with 2 consultants and the patient’s advocate. Still disgusting though if the patient struggles. Not nice at all. USA? well, they seem to do anything they like to non US citizens.
Thing is, there’s a medical ethic in here too (not speaking of US habits – just the ethics of force feeding).
Is it justified in the case of a child dying of anorexia?
Is it justified in the case of someone who has lost mental capacity and is refusing to eat?
Is it justified in the case of someone in a coma who cannot give consent?
If you answer yes to any of these – as I imagine a few will, then you have to work out the ethics of the borderline. Consider the Samaritans, who will attempt to prevent people taking their own lives by persuasion. If this is OK, then it’s a small step to a doctor faced with someone determined to take their own life by starvation, but with the (legally sanctioned) means to prevent it. Can the doctor stand back and say OK, go ahead….Can the Samaritan stand back and say OK go ahead?
It’s not at all easy. I’m in no way condoning Guantanamo here, and I’m horrified by the video – but there’s more than one side to this question, and the video does not address any of the ethical problems.
That was simply vile. I didn’t have the nerve to watch it all the way through.
How can civilised people do that to other human beings?
Horrific and shocking that any Nation calling itself ‘civilised’ can do this.
This is an interesting case of my personal interest, the work of author Robert E. Howard, intersecting with the independence debate.
Here’s the thing: that is what civilised people do to other human beings. It’s what they have done since civilisation began. Civilisation gives us great and wonderful things, but ignore the terrible things civilization has facilitated at your peril. See, civilisation at its core is neutral: it’s simply an organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development. It does not say anything about morality, ethics, or justice. But since the time of Assyria, civilisation considered itself automatically superior to nomadism, tribal communities, and others in every way, by default.
Consider what the British Empire gave the indigenous peoples of other countries (the bits in between law, railways and sanitation) such as casual slaughter, torture, concentration camps, genocide, Rule 303, while the Victorians went to church every Sunday to the tune of Jerusalem and thinking of how they were the most enlightened people on the planet: then this obscenity and the British collusion of such acts of barbarity comes as no surprise.
Look at any major civilization in history, and you can point to acts of cruelty, oppression, murder and genocide. It comes to the point that you have to question whether what we deem “uncivilised” is really “uncivilised” at all. “Acts of barbarity”? No, acts of civilisation.
It doesn’t have to be this way: a civilisation doesn’t have to be evil. But to say these evils are incompatible or unusual with a civilised society does not square with the vast majority of history.
*I should add that I’m not subscribing to some patronising “noble savage” view of non-civilised society – the same neutral status of civilisation applies to them, so they can be peaceful or violent – simply that I think this cognitive effect of associating civilisation automatically with everything “good” and anything uncivilised with everything “bad” is culturally myopic, and it runs the risk of externalising internal issues.
“simply that I think this cognitive effect of associating civilisation automatically with everything “good” and anything uncivilised with everything “bad” is culturally myopic”
Indeed. One of the very first things we do as a species when we discover something new is think of ways to hurt each other with it.
“Is it justified in the case of a child dying of anorexia?”
I’d imagine the enormous physical stress and trauma on someone so weak would be counterproductive.
“Is it justified in the case of someone who has lost mental capacity and is refusing to eat?”
I’d say no, but that’s currently the UK situation with the likes of Brady.
“Is it justified in the case of someone in a coma who cannot give consent?”
Surely it’s not necessary? Someone in a coma is generally kept alive by means of a drip.
“Can the doctor stand back and say OK, go ahead”
I’d be interested to know what the Hippocratic Oath says on the subject. Are doctors allowed to force blood transfusions on Jehovah’s Witnesses? I don’t think so, but correct me if I’m wrong.
@rev
I’d imagine the enormous physical stress and trauma on someone so weak would be counterproductive.
That’s ducking the issue. I was asking whether it was ethically justified, not whether it might be counterproductive. And I deliberately chose a child so the consent issue was not in play. What is your answer?
The Hippocratic oath (not surprisingly given its age) has nowt to say on the subject. The GMC’s ‘Good clinical practice’ – which is what I believe doctors now have to sign up to, is also silent. But I believe doctors still have a duty to ‘preserve life’
There have been a few cases where courts have decided the children of JWs must receive blood transfusions. That is because the court must decide what is in the best interests of the child. AFAIAA, a ‘capable’ adult cannot be forced into accepting medical treatment, but that’s a slightly different issue from force feeding (though, again, the line is blurred)
The oaths taken by doctors are a bit … well bollocks – they change with the times – the latest suggestion by the BMA to the WMA is particularly scary for this section…
“I will use my training and professional standing to improve the community in which I work. I will treat patients equitably and support a fair and humane distribution of health resources. I will try to influence positively authorities whose policies harm public health.”
Hmm “distribution of health resources” “fair”… by who’s standards and ” try to influence”…. weasel words….
“recognise the special value of human life but I also know that the prolongation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare. Where abortion is permitted, I agree that it should take place only within an ethical and legal framework. I will not provide treatments which are pointless or harmful or which an informed and competent patient refuses”
wow…..
And the original oath…
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
Bit of a change there eh? Abortion and euthanasia are now OK…
“That’s ducking the issue. I was asking whether it was ethically justified”
Okay. My view is still no, because you’re treating the symptom not the cause. It’s like trying to put a bandage on someone while they’re still being attacked by an alligator – fundamentally you’re only going to make things worse.
And I’m not sure why my answer isn’t an ethics issue anyway – forcefeeding someone for ideological rather than medical reasons (where it’s going to damage rather than help them) seems a pretty clear ethical judgement to me.
from my half-full perspective I had a great experience this morning. Printed off some leaflets from YES website to distribute around my 15 neighbouring houses. I try not to engage people in political argument as come what may they will still be my neighbours. I usually deliver leaflets in the evening so don’t see anyone. This morning I set off and met with three male neighbours. I started with “if you don’t want any YES material just say so and I won’t bother you”. These 3 I would definitely have put in the NO camp. One Englishman – an ex anaesthetist, one a businessman and the other a strong RANGERS supporter (no offence to the many who do support independence). All 3 it turned out were for Independence and the Englishman said “Ive been an SNP voter for years”! I have felt really good about this all day and it has filled my glass a wee bit more. I want it full then i’ll toast my country’s restoration to freedom!
“Abortion and euthanasia are now OK…”
I’m pretty sure the latter isn’t.
Krackerman
The old oath is outdated somewhat. It is a document of great significance because it set a moral code for medical practice, but itwas a product of it’s time. Having us swear to Greek deities that we will not remove kidney stones, shag slaves etc would be wrong. It needed updated for the modern legal/cultural environment.
The specific point on health economics is interesting. We work within systems and “the greatest good for the greatest number” is our aim. The cancer drugs brouhaha (copyright J Lamont) wilfully plays on emotion and demonstrates this point. A drug that costs tens of thousands to increase life by a few weeks, or vast amounts of routine care with definite benefits for hundreds? Of course, that does not neglect the fact that end of life is sad and can be hard to face, that extra time with loved ones may be utterly precious. But we work within a system with limited resources. We cant pretend otherwise.
P.S. we don’t perform euthanasia. But good palliative care recognises our mortality and that treatment can cause as well as relieve distress. Recognising when to stop is a part of this, but it is not euthanasia!
When one of my grandfathers was dying of leukaemia in our home, the doctor came, gave him the once-over, then asked my Mum to join him in another room – he explained it was just a matter of time etc.
When Mum went back in the room she found the full bottle of morphine which had been left within easy reach of her Dad. As it turned out he chose not to take the opportunity and died a very painful death after starving himself. But he was, if only for a short time, shown a possible early exit.
If I end up in a similar situation, I’d like someone to at least make the option available – it’s then down to me whether or not to take it.
‘Common decency’ is a hellishly difficult thing to define, but most of us recognise it. Is it explained by ‘ethics’? Dunno.
Ianbrotherhood
I understand/sympathise and personally think we should consider assisted dying in the right circumstances. I hate to see anyone suffer.
@Rev there are 1000s of rangers fans who are strong nationalists.
I couldn’t bring myself to watch the video but going back to the book I mentioned before Cruel Britannia it outlines the Five Techniques used in the programme of torture. Even in Northern Ireland and more recently in Iraq.
One small paragraph from the book:
Not all the vidoes show scenes of abuse and not all the interrogators and guards at JFIT were brutal. Ahme Jawad al-Fartoosi tells of one man, a Scotsman called Sergeant Mike who would come and chat to him in his cell and bring the prisoners chilled water. “He was very sympathetic to me”.
The Black Watch were not quite as sympathetic!
75 times Prestwick airport was used for refuelling in the Rendition Programme after 9/11 as no questions were asked.
I know many people on here know about the British way of torture but, I didn’t and this book has shocked me, and the author.
“@Rev there are 1000s of rangers fans who are strong nationalists.”
Huh?
Rev – give it time – it almost is legal now…. and as I said – the BMA want to add “prologation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare” pretty clear to me where thats going. add it into context with the “distribution of health resources” and I forsee an interesting time ahead for those subjected to the NHS….
Used to be “do no harm” now it’s going to be – kill if you think saving is not worth the effort or “health resources”.
Shipman would love this…..
“Rev – give it time – it almost is legal now”
Fine by me – I can’t think of a worse fate than being one of those poor bastards with locked-in syndrome, desperate to die but being forced to live an intolerable life.
Point is, you can’t just say it’s allowed when it isn’t, and when people still face the real danger of lengthy jail terms if they help a loved one end their misery.
Rev,
I know you’re wary of bringing these topics onto your site, but they are relevant.
We (SSP) got wind of rendition flights stopping in Prestwick many years ago. (I’m guessing this would’ve been 2004/5.)
We went to Prestwick Airport, one of the lads had a loudhailer – we went into the main building and started informing the punters what the airport was being used for. Within minutes we were asked to leave, and escorted to a section of the car-park where we could only be heard by seagulls.
We followed-up that effort with a hand-delivered letter protesting the use of the place for ‘rendition’ (which, at that time, was not a well-known term) – Airport management refused to see us, so we had to pass the letter to a very friendly lass at a Reception Desk. We took photos, tried to get the Press interested. Far as I know, no-one ran any reports.
It’s kicking-on for ten years since – we took dogs abuse for doing it. (We were nothing more than rabid ‘conspiracy’ loons, tin-foil hat wearers, fruitcakes etc etc…the usual.)
Now, this stuff is becoming ‘fact’ because the fucking ‘Guardian’ deigns to acknowledge some academic study? (What, precisely, has it been ‘guarding’ for the past decade?)
It’s no wonder political ‘activism’ in this country is so pathetic – people can’t be blamed when they despair of hitting their heads against the same wall. That wall is the ‘Main Stream Media’, and those who knew about the rendition programme (and other outrages, such as Saville) are every bit as guilty as Blair, Hoon, Straw, Ingram, Reid etc etc.
A painful pox on the lot of them.
The reason I won’t watch the footage above is that my head is already full of grim shite I saw a decade ago. I don’t need any more of it. Point is – many of the most prominent MSM mouthpieces in this country saw exactly the same stuff at exactly the same time – they had the opportunity to speak out on behalf of ‘decent, ordinary’ citizens.
They failed.
Each and every one of them, at various points during the tragic farce aka ‘The War on Terror’, had the freedom to say, ‘naw, that’s enough. Ah’m offksy.’
Some did. But those who didn’t are still there…always, dutifully, there…on-message…day and night…week after week, month after month…via every MSM outlet, posing as advocates of reason and decency. If they deviate or show any sign of ‘going native’? they disappear…
Those left at the helm are seasoned, professional liars who’ve cut their teeth on the ‘diplomatic’ coverage of genocide.
‘Know thy enemy?’
If we know nothing else, it’s that they’re proper hardcore.
Krackerman , really ? You see an interesting time ahead for those subjected to the NHS etc. I complained about Jackie Baillie as some of her statements could only undermine the trust patients have in the NHS (sometimes a hard fought trust ,but worth fighting for ).
In 30 years ,I have never heard anyone in the NHS in Scotland, describe anyone as ‘not worth the effort’, ever !
If you think any average employee of the NHS would just accept that travel of direction your suggesting , then you seriously underestimate who and why people work in the NHS.
@ianbrotherhood
A great, heartfelt rant.
I’ll stick another one to you though…Every media outlet in the land a bit bigger than the local rag has a box full of scandals – many well substantiated. The reason they don’t run them is simple – litigation. The cost – not just money, but time & energy & endless sessions with lawyers and courts is simply not worth it, unless someone calculates that the story is big enough to be worth the risk. Even then….if you look at the manpower and time the Telegraph had to throw at the expenses scandal, it’s mind-boggling. Only the richest outlets can afford that kind of gamble.
So, if I were you, I’d reserve a section of your justified wrath for the Byzantine and repressive legal framework which surrounds ‘freedom of speech’. And of course, if you happen to be up against the Government, they can spend taxpayer’s money like water in order to keep you quiet, not to mention passing legislation ‘for your own safety’ which leaves you in severe danger of a 6am raid if you make a fuss…
Freedom of speech is something I most definitely wish to see in our new constitution – together with a constitutional court ready to throw out any legislation which seeks to restrict it for reasons of ‘national security’ – or anything else.
Krackerman
FFS! That is a bizarre interpretation of the BMA statement. Palliative care implicitly accepts that we are mortal and that when people are dying some treatment can cause suffering. The decision to withdraw that treatment is never taken lightly.
As to the idea that we would become murderers doing the stathe’s dirty work? Get tae f##k! Shipman was a nutter, an aberration. Almost all doctors are in this job to help patients. Rant over.
It’s not bizzare at all – it’s there in black in white and interpretation IS the problem I’m pointing out. You ask how a doctor can standby or participate in forced feeding – well there’s your answer.
An oath with enough wriggle room to allow even genocide.
And oath like this should be black and white – DO NO HARM. This ones does not – this one allows withholding medication IF THE DOCTOR THINKS IT’S NOT A GOOD USE OF RESOURCES.. think on that.
@Rev I honestly think you need to change your mind set regarding Rangers fans that want Scotland to be an independent country. A lot are actually SNP supporters, I know of many Rangers fans and that is exactly want they want. I think you are getting confused with the Loyalist Rangers fans and your ordinary Scottish Rangers fan, their is a HUGE difference between the two sets of fans. Most loyalist fans are connected to the Orange Lodge via Northern Ireland via the queen ,via the Union etc.. so as you can see they are all inter connected. Your ordinary Scottish rangers fan is genuinely just wanting Rangers to be a quality Scottish team and would be persuaded to vote for an Independent Scotland, so take the blinkers off Rev and see the picture from both sides.
Fair point Rev – I should have made clear – in the context of the updated oath proposed by the BMA to the WMA (that I was referring to) then it’s OK by that updated oath. I didn’t mean to infer it was OK morally or legally at this point in time in the UK.
Dee – It wasn’t the Rev who mentioned RANGERS supporters it was me in my post at 8.56 last night. I said I was surprised that a “strong RANGERS supporter” was so pro independence. I also said “no offence to the many who do support independence”! You will know that many Rangers supporters are against independence – that is why I was surprised. Pleasantly I have to say. I understand there is a Rangers for Independence website -other clubs also. No offence was intended and don’t blame the Rev. Bill
@Bill, crossed wires this morning, its just that I have heard this confused story about Rangers fans for a while now, its the old story of tarring everyone with the same brush syndrome. So I had to get it out that their is two completely different sets of Rangers fans out their. Everyone seems to think that all Rangers fans are these knuckle scraping Loyalists. So the next Rangers fan you chat to remember that they are ripe and ready to be persuaded to vote YES.
Rev I do apologise for thinking you wrote reply..
Krackerman
There is no room for interpretation. Not prolonging life is not synonymous with ending it. That is clearly illegal. If you think for 1 minute that we would start bumping off patients to save money then you clearly misunderstand what it is to be a doctor (or a nurse or a physio…). IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
As I said to you before, we do not have infinite staff/money/resources, much as we would like to. It therefore becomes inevitable that we cannot do everything for everyone. Decisions have to be made. Therefore ‘a fair and equitable distribution of health resources’ is vital. Agreed, the wording is a bit wooly. But it is not for such an oath to define exactly what that distribution is because it depends on local population/needs/resources.
P.S. saying “Shipman would be happy” is as close as it gets in medical world tp the popular use of Godwin.
Doug – somehow I’m not reassured by your words – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html
Targets?? Death quotas….??? Change proposed by the BMA makes sense in light of this.
“Almost two thirds of NHS trusts using the Liverpool Care Pathway have received payouts totalling millions of pounds for hitting targets related to its use, research for The Daily Telegraph shows.
The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the full scale of financial inducements for the first time.
They suggest that about 85 per cent of trusts have now adopted the regime, which can involve the removal of hydration and nutrition from dying patients. ”
Krackerman
That right wing bullcrap (see also the Daily Mail’s Mel Phillips) is barely worth wiping your backside with. The agenda is clearly to besmirch the good name of the NHS and to put the fear of God into potential/actual patients. Poisonous lies.
The pathway itself is flawed, but designed and used with good intentions. It is designed to help people who are dying, not to cause death. This is a thoughtful article by a doctor on the matter. Worth a read.
http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2013/06/30/liverpool-care-pathway-the-daily-mail-vs-care-for-the-dying/
“As always, the culpability lies with the medical profession and not with the Daily Mail for printing misleading articles… The implications that doctors are killing patients or that they don’t care or that somehow this is a NHS initiative to save money are ———– well, I don’t know, I’ve run out of adjectives… (insulting, misleading, offensive, damaging, dangerous, horrific, indefensible, typical for the Mail, wrong, cynical, plain dishonest) – take your pick!
Well, actually I think all of those and then some more: The implications that doctors are killing patients or that they don’t care or that somehow this is a NHS initiative to save money are insultmisleadinglyoffensivelydamaginglydangeroushorrificlyindefensiblelytypical-for-the-Mail-wronglycynicallyplain-dishonestetc!”
This is a more ‘official’ site worth looking at before you make up your mind.
http://www.endoflifecare.nhs.uk/care-pathway/step-5-care-in-the-last-days-of-life/liverpool-care-pathway.aspx
If you want to believe that your friendly local GP/hospital consultant will be induced to murder and ‘bump off’ the frail at the behest of the state, then crack on. However, i assure you that it is bull of the highest order.
Anyways, you touched a nerve so sorry for the rant. I won’t say any more on the matter as I’m conscious it’d end up totally derailing the thread.
Bye for now!
Dee – thanks for your response. I personally know 3 Rangers supporters well – 2 are for Indpendence, the other one is persuadable. I just wanted to clear the air that it wasn’t the Rev. I’ve never believed that all Rangers fans are “knuckle scraping loyalists” nor do I believe all Celtic fans are “mad republicans”. My team is Dunfermline although i’m past the age of attending regularly and I wish we had a “Pars for Independence” webpage. Good luck and have a great day!
Cheers Bill.
@kininvie (1.19am)-
Aye. Agreed. All of what you said right there.
I suppose we all ‘know’ about this or that scandal, and we choose not to highlight them for a whole raft of reasons.
Self-censorship? Aye, but life would pretty soon become chaotic if we didn’t all exercise it constantly.
Perhaps MSM editors, producers etc rationalise their behaviour on that basis, but they consistently claim to possess qualities which the rest of us don’t ‘need’ to get from one day to the next.
The ‘truth’ is something we should all treasure, no matter how unpalatable or unflattering it happens to be – perhaps the ‘truth’ is that the MSM is every bit as fallible and corrupted as any human who’s lived x-number of years, but if so? they could do themselves a huge favour by admitting as much, sparing us their sanctimonious pish.
Perhaps, then, they’d deserve some respect.