Translate

Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label euthanasia. Show all posts

Friday, 13 May 2016

How to deal with the suicidal without assisting them


Mencius:

"Fish is what I want; bear's palm is also what I want. If I cannot have both, I would rather take bear's palm than fish. Life is what I want; yi is also what I want. If I cannot have both, I would rather take yi than life. On the one hand, though life is what I want, there is something I want more than life. That is why I do not cling to life at all cost. On the other hand, though death is what I loathe, there is something I loathe more than death. That is why there are dangers I do not avoid ... Yet there are ways of remaining alive and ways of avoiding death to which a person will not resort. In other words, there are things a person wants more than life and there are also things he or she loathes more than death."

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Proposed division of mental health treatment to streamline the provision of mental health services







Rise in serious incidents at English mental health trusts

Who are these people with mental health problems? Is it the result of bad parenting? Let their parents take responsibility for them then. I bet the parents of these people are unfit mothers who apparently couldn't grasp the link between careless copulation, unwanted pregnancy, single parenting, bad parenting and mentally ill offspring who are a burden to themselves and the state.

Once we shame mental illness again, people will start suppressing their symptoms again instead of burdening everyone else with their bad mental health.

I feel it would be constructive to divided bad mental health into the following categories:


  1. FEELING SAD
  2. BEING BAD
  3. BEING MAD


Those in the BEING BAD category should just be dealt with by the Criminal Justice system.

Those who are feeling sad should be asked to try believing in God and cultivating a personal relationship with Him.

Those in the third category could be confined to mental asylums, but only if they are curable and apparently harmless.

Those who are not curable can be invited to consider euthanasia or their next of kin invited to do so.

Those who are criminally insane and obviously homicidal would proceed straight to euthanasia, not passing go and not collecting £200.

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Were these tweets why I was blocked on Twitter by the @BBCr4today?


Ming Ho satirises the exchange we had at http://dementiajustaintsexy.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/an-economically-viable-unit.html


http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/deathbed-scenes-in-fiction

Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Is Geoffrey Clarke of UKIP guilty of inciting religious hatred?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-candidate-geoffrey-clarke-calls-1495957

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/2517/outrage-as-gravesend-ukip-candidate-geoffrey-clark-calls-for-forced-abortion-of-disab#.UNClwOc_Pew.twitter

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4704117/Ukip-candidate-takes-controversial-stance-on-abortion.html

http://geoffreyclark.webs.com/manifesto


HEALTH CARE AND THE NHS
...  Other items for review: ceasing all free IVF treatment on the NHS; cutting unecessary waste e.g the destruction of drugs in care homes when residents move on to the next care home or the next world; the pregnancy abortion time limit; compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family. CLARIFICATION TO AVOID CONFUSION AND MISREPRESENTATION: I do not, and UKIP does not, endorse any of these ideas: they are suggestions of matters for the review body to properly consider in light of the stated desire of all political parties to reduce the national debt.

Geoffrey Clarke got into trouble over this for his perceived callousness towards the disabled.  I would not have put it quite like that however.   My modest proposal was to give the parents of the unwanted unviable disabled infant and their proxy the midwife the option of committing infanticide without getting into trouble with the law.   However, what is in fact more shocking was what he said about the Koran and Muslims.



THE KORAN NEEDS TO BE UPDATED
Here are some passages from the Koran [Penguin Classics version]:-

WOMEN: 4:24
You are forbidden to take in marriage married women, except captives whom you own as slaves.

WOMEN: 4:25
If any one of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, let him marry a slave-girl who is a believer.

WOMEN: 4:34
Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior over the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.

What sensible person believes that stupidity today? Anyone who does believe it today must be a scumbag and must be told so. Stop being squeamish about telling scumbags that they are scumbags, just because they happen to be Muslim scumbags.

The Koran is 1300 years old and is in desperate need of updating so men cease to abuse it. You will doubtless agree that the Koran needs to address women as well as men, and a lot of updating is needed. How can such a book be respected – quite aside from being followed? UKIP has a solution. The leaders of the main faiths should get together in 2013 and agree to update all their holy books by 2020 then re-issue them as appropriate for the world in which we live today, not for the world of hundreds of years ago. Then, women were subservient and it was "sort of OK" to have slaves. Today it is unconscionable behaviour. 

I am not so much shocked by this reference to Muslim "scumbags" (for we already know how deeply Islamophobic both UKIP and the BNP are) but by his scriptural ignorance of the Bible - a religion that he claims to wish to defend.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm  
You will find many more offensive references to women there than you ever will in the Koran.

Below is another questionable sentence:
"Defend the freedom of religion, other than wearing the burkha."

However, for this ungrammatical non sequitur of this sentence, and for proposing that the Koran be updated, he should be expelled for the crime of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.


Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.



The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

I think any group of people with a holy book would feel threatened if someone whom they knew hated their religion, their holy book and them and who called them "scumbags" were threatening to rewrite or "update" their holy book.

It can be safely inferred that someone who calls Muslims "scumbags" has every intention of stirring up religious hatred.

A successful prosecution is certainly possible, in my opinion.  It is pretty much an open and shut case.




HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour

Friday, 2 July 2010

Assisted Suicide

I propose a suicide pack of 7 pills. You take one every day. The last one is fatal.  

There would be two versions: The Russian Roulette Version and the Predictable Version.

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Suicide Pill Pack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8466112.stm

I am so tired of hearing about silly cases like this one being prosecuted at huge expense to the taxpayer which end up not deciding anything anyway.

The daughter wanted to die.

The mother wanted the daughter to die.

The daughter was no good to man nor beast.

So, unless you want to look after her in your own home for the rest of her life, what is the problem?

Why can't we have a trial period of selling Suicide Pill Packs?

It would work like a pill-popping version of Russian Roulette.

Basically, the idea is take one pill a day for seven days from a pack. One of them contains a poison pill, but you don't know which one ....

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

It is telling, is it not, that it is only on this ridiculous and unnecessary piece of legislation that MPs are indulged by being allowed to vote with their consciences?

Are there not enough people around that we need to artificially create humans to further desecrate the environment with their consumption, aspirations and carbon footprints?

Why is it, though, that our government is perpetually bent on sponsoring folly?

Is it that important that gays and lesbians be given the option of having a child (probably at taxpayers' expense) that will probably be having problems with its self-identity when it grows up, particularly when that couple have split up? (It is of course well-known that homosexual relationships are more unstable than marriage, even in these days of easy divorce.)




Below is an imagined conversation between an Irresponsible Lesbian Mother and her laboratory-created Half- Human Half-Animal "Son":

Little Boy: Mother, who was my father?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: You don't have one, dear. I had you created with my ex-girlfriend who has now gone off with another woman when she discovered that motherhood was not to her liking. We felt it was a lifestyle choice at the time, a bit like having a new kitchen or buying a pet together.

Little Boy: Am I a Freak of Nature, mum?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: I'm afraid so, darling.

Little Boy: Does this mean that if I grow up to be a psychotic serial murderer, because of my inability to come to terms with my biological origins, people will understand and empathise?

Irresponsible Lesbian Mother: That is perfectly possible, dear boy, if the fund of compassion has not been completely exhausted and Western civilisation still exists in any recognisable form.




If those who cannot reproduce normally feel a little left out, why is it the state's (and by extension the taxpayer's) role to look after these people?

If most women who put career before motherhood are too dim or career-focused not to realise that they are compromising their fertility and their marriage prospects by leaving it too late, then the obvious solution would be a change of behaviour, such as marrying younger, and getting an alpha male such as Tony Blair to propose to you because he likes the way you clean toilets without having to be asked (as related by Cherie Blair in her book Speaking for Myself), choosing men with incomes capable of supporting a housewife, rather than aiding and abetting these women in continuing in their fertility-challenged lifestyles.

What is worse is that quite a few of these women, suddenly becoming aware of their error in their mid-30s, intentionally get themselves pregnant by men to whom they have temporary sexual access but who are not husband-material. They then turn up on the doorsteps of their parents (if still together), who are expected to be grateful at the prospect of becoming the grandparents of an illegitimate grandchild.

This fact is proudly announced to neighbours, friends and family, who are expected to congratulate them.

The crime is complete when we do, because we do not wish to give offence.

As for the creation of "saviour siblings", my Darwinian instincts tell me that if you have a child that is not fit for life, then it is better to just have another one that is, rather than have another one to save the one that is unfit for life. If the unfit one continues, your limited resources of time and energy will be taken up in keeping alive a life that is unviable, sickly and unproductive, when your energies would be more profitably directed to supporting a child that is healthy and normal, and expecting the taxpayer to sponsor this humanitarian indulgence.

This is just what I mean when I talk about this cancer of compassion which has spread to every organ of national life.

Why, I ask again, is it the role of government (and by extension the taxpayer) to sponsor such folly?

Now, an Euthanasia Bill for the self-righteous, interfering, wasteful and dim, who think that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is a productive use of Parliamentary time, would have my enthusiastic support ...

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...