British ethicist: Senile should be “put down”
posted at 9:00 am on September 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:
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. …
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’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.
“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”
Shocking? It shouldn’t be. When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.
Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.
Western civilization built itself on the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual. It doesn’t take much for Westerners to give up that birthright. The only incentive for voluntary slavery appears to be low-cost prescriptions and catastrophic hospital coverage. Once we buy into that system, all manner of personal choices get removed: the foods you can eat, the beverages you can drink, your pastimes, and apparently your right not to be murdered just to clear a hospital bed.
Resources will get rationed in one manner or another. Only air exists in such abundance that it needs no rationing. The question for any society is whether they will choose the efficient method of market-based rationing or the caprice of a top-down bureaucratic diktat. The former encourages more of the resource to be produced, while the latter restricts new resources and forces a shortage management system onto its community. We see this more clearly in Britain’s NHS than in any other Western construct, and Baroness Warnock’s monstrous demand is only the natural result.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
try history 101. the darwin-hitler connection is obvious, and well documented.
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
link
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM
How can an accent be condescending? You’re making little sense today.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:25 PM
If anyone ought be put down, it’s her. That’s one ugly mug. Yeeeeow!
LibertarianConservative on September 19, 2008 at 12:25 PM
angus 12:15 today.
In 1776 not so, and more’s the pity if the British Monarch today is not recognized as the nation’s mainstay figurehead, the people’s leader historically by divine right.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
lets not forget the inherent racism in the theory of evolution….
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM
OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM
truth hurts doesn’t it?
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Kill the ugly! Now that’s good-lookin’ genocide!
Wait a min….I curdle milk….argh
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
you’ll like these too….
A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).
“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM
with such an erudite response, you must be a darwinist!
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Haven’t read the whole thread, so it’s probably already been said, but this guy looks pretty close to dementia himself.
I have a few needles laying around… shall we just go ahead and off him now,… do society a favor, et al… ?
Gartrip on September 19, 2008 at 12:33 PM
aengus, USE of one’s accent TO DENOTE ONE’S PRESUMED DISTINCT SUPERIORITY marks an aristocrat’s condescension to “lesser” populations. Warnock exhibits a sick superiority complex via words and delivery.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Golden Banana headed your way.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Oh I see now. We’re talking about two a half centuries ago. I should’ve picked up on that, huh?
Are you sure? I haven’t read anything in the papers recently. Who’s the current figurehead? William I?
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I’m not any kind of “ist”. Ists are for monkeys.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:35 PM
“That woman is a MAN, baby.”
- Austin Powers
Right_of_Attila on September 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
or biologists
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Ahem….it’s a woman.
I know, I know….fell outta the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
You first a$$hole!!!
Whenever these a$$holes start talking this way tell them to lead by example!! See how many actually do!! Kinda like Osama bin Laden!!
Bubba Redneck on September 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I’m well aware what one’s accent can be used for. Presumably then you could condescend to someone in any accent. But you implied there was something inherently condescending in an aristocratic English accent.
As far as Warnock exhibiting a superiority complex via her words and delivery – audio please.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
You sure showed him Limey!
Stop it! You sound like a lefty-loon that’s got nothing better to say. You’re better than this.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I’m optimizing my retorts ;)
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
maybe you just need to evolve your retorts..
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Darwin was DEAD. Hitler and the eugenics movement used the ideas of natural selection and perverted them after Darwin was DEAD.
Gregor Mendel discovered the principles of inheritance. Hitler and other eugenicists relied upon those principles also. Do we need to publicly denounce Mendel as well?
To denounce Darwin because some people did crazy evil things with his work as a naturalist is insane.
funky chicken on September 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM
That kind of gutter language will get you banned here LimeyGeek. You might want to keep that in mind.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 12:47 PM
It might not be totally fair but its hardly insane. Friedrich Nietzsche died in 1900 but his ideas were also developed (arguably perverted) by the Nazis.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I thought this was a right-to-die thread, not an evolutionary biology-bashing thread for goodness sake.
All of these debates about Darwin’s religious or political views have no bearing on the scientific arguments surrounding evolution. A mass-murderer can discover a life-saving drug. Their morals have nothing to do with it.
Y-not on September 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM
ideas have consequences. obviously. lets see biologists are influenced by darwin’s theory…even though he’s dead. but Hitler couldn’t have been no no no, because darwin was dead…yeah
first learn your own precious theory. Darwin didn’t use genetics…it wasn’t incorporated into evolution until the Synthesis by Mayr. unlike evolution, genetics does not attempt to explain all of life, get rid of God, etc.
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM
oh ok, lets see, there is no evidence in the fossil record, or in the lab, nothing evolves. sorry.
evolution has nothing to do with finding drugs, sorry. even Coyne admits this:
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM
aengus, either get over yourself or exercise pugilism on your own misconstrued mindset.
Before you jump to conclusions based upon your own bias, at least review the setting and maintain context.
It’s an opinion. Enjoy your own. But at your own expense. We’ve previously been through this bore. Keep the ill will from that chip on your own shoulder if you can’t drop it.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Ed,
You seem to imply here that our system doesn’t ration care. That’s bogus on its face. As an RN, I can tell you that our system rations care everyday. We do it by erecting barriers to entry. Show up in the lobby of a private hospital without cash or health insurance and see what happens to you.
I’m not making an argument for the British system, nor am I railing our system. I’m just saying that rationing of valuable resources it inevitable, and every economy in the world does it. The only difference between our system and the British system is the mechanism by which rationing occurs.
paul006 on September 19, 2008 at 12:53 PM
MIND READER aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Keep your words and your thoughts as your own.
Quit forcing your stinking foot into my mouth.
Do not insert your intent as my implication.
Bore.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:59 PM
I’m not writing out of ill will but rather because I suspect malice on your part. Your comments masquerade as political objections but you manage to drag in all sorts of irrational aspects like class resentment and dramatic screaming (”DISTANCE! REBUKE!”) which strike me as odd.
Although I admit I missed the part about the French Revolution. My eye skipped over it.
Still, you can ignore or not read to my comments if they bother you.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM
You talk a load of old garbage sometimes.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM
But you are making an argument in favor of collectivism whether you realize it or not. It’s true that some people don’t get care because they have no means, even though the taxpayers pay for many programs that hope to provide at least basic care for those who need it and cannot afford it.
But your point lends credibility to the idea we should move to a collectivist system and everyone relent all of their personal choices to the benevolent government officials that would run such a program. Under such a program if history is any guide, those who are “too” sick will quickly be deemed not worthy of care, too expensive to the collective you know. And the old and sick will eventually be deemed useless eaters and they will be “put down” as a “reasonable” act to preserve resources.
The point you don’t understand is that under todays system, there is no one in authority to point a finger at them and say they are no longer worthy of life. Under any socialized medicine program and knowing where they eventually lead, that will no longer be true.
People who advocate for socialized medicine want to trade bad for worse, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 1:09 PM
You talk a load of old garbage sometimes.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Get over yourself.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Hey it’s Futurama, instead of phone booths there are suicide booths on every corner; and for a cheap cost you can have yourself killed.
Hooray, we’re finally getting something that matches sci-fi predictions. Although I’d still rather have had a flying car.
gekkobear on September 19, 2008 at 1:15 PM
^^^^^the last word
*claps*
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 1:16 PM
You missed the point of that analogy.
The Dalai Lama (or Mother Teresa or pick you favorite saintly person) could sneeze, startle someone, and cause a fatal accident.
Conversely, a mass-murderer could cause good, either intentionally or unintentionally.
My point is that the scientific method and natural laws are morally neutral.
I won’t attempt to persuade you about evolutionary biology. I’m sure you’ve spoken with other scientists who have tried to persuade you and failed, so I doubt this scientist can convince you. But I will say that millions of Christians believe in God and evolution.
The Catholic Church teaches that they are not in conflict with each other, for one. A belief in God who created the universe and a natural order in which proteins, cells, and organisms evolve are not mutually exclusive. I think you are not helping your case by implying that they are. You might gain more traction in your discussions with others if you were to tone down your rhetoric rather than implying that scientists who study evolutionary processes are defective, immoral, or worse.
Y-not on September 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM
The same was true with abortion – we wont force you to have one, if you dont like abortion dont have one. The sanctity and value of human life took a nose dive after 1973. And now look at where we are – you old folks better die. This after the government forced people to use socialized health care. If government cant afford it, then government should get out. So it will come to this: well, we cant afford all the people being born with our sorry health care, so abortion will no longer be a “choice.” We are becoming what China is.
On the other hand government has no business nor (in this country) any constituional authority to be in the health care business.
Just my 2 cents.
abcurtis on September 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Thank you for sharing your story and for valuing life.
Loxodonta on September 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Ok, a little of topic but evolution stands directly opposite God and His creation.
Consider:
Evolution says life came from the sea, or a puddle
Creation says God created life from dirt
Evolution says man evolved from an animal
Creations says we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God.
abcurtis on September 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
aengus, take your own advice before pressing it on others.
I read your posts without antagonizing your communications. Do likewise. Otherwise, your “malicious” label sticks to your own craw for dishing it based upon presumptive mind reading.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I hit the submit button too soon. But those are just two points.
I would like to see a fossil that transitions between one species and another. Could an evolutionary scientist show me one of those?
And evolutionary biology is not a true science – it’s speculation built on hope. We are speculating one species evolved into another and we sure hope this fossil will show it.
But the fossil record will never show a transitional fossil because that fossil does not exist.
Btw – how come we still have monkeys? Has evolution stopped?
abcurtis on September 19, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I’d really like to see that half lizard-half bird fossil.
abcurtis on September 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Yes! Passable wit works for me!
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Look, drawing a perfectly reasonable inference from a statement is not an attempt at “mind reading” or “forcing [my] stinking foot into my mouth.” Its one of the ways how a conversation progresses.
If you make public statements you’re going to be challenged. Thats in the nature of arguing in a public forum. Its not personal to me so I’m not agitated by your responses, insulting though some of them were.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I remember 20 years ago a governor right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. had this same view of getting rid of society’s burdens. Roy Romer (D-Colorado) came up with the idea of putting down old folks and the like. Luckily, no one paid much attention to him.
Flint Stone on September 19, 2008 at 1:36 PM
It’s a great idea.
The only little fly in the ointment that I could see would be tasking the already overburdened National Health Service with the obligation to determine who is (e.g., Lady Warnock) and who isn’t (e.g., me) demented.
Given all the paperwork, hearings, red tape and what-not that would be attendant upon making these determinations before those with the License to Kill could dispatch the feeble-minded, I think it would be a better and more economical idea to simply establish a rule that anybody over the age of (say) 55 is presumptively demented (especially if they continue to live in England voluntarily after this policy is implemented).
Fortunately for the health and safety of those dedicated civil servants who will implement this policy, the UK has already taken the wise precaution of disarming its population.
morganfrost on September 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
aengus
Twice now you have exerted your own offensive style as though I must submit to force, which premise I reject. I have never assaulted your opinions, though you have mine. There are better ways to converse in a public forum than picking fights for fun. I do not endorse the fight club, neither do I endorse offensive abuse.
Initiating a dialogue via pugilism provokes likewise. So long as mutual restraint prevents projecting malice as the other’s motivation, certainly no hard feelings are necessary.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Good grief, I saw the photo and until I read comments in here thought it was a man. The British are a strange lot.
UnEasyRider on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Could I tell you some stories……
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
It was Governor Dick Lamm, and he made the statement after he was governor.
phineas on September 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
This is very coincidental. I’m reading through Atlas Shrugged right now for the first time, and I’m almost finished. The world is about to collapse because of the “moral” imperative that people should self-immolate for the good of others, that sacrificing one’s self and their ability for those who want to control your life because they have no right to either…wow, Rand really did see it coming.
Viewtifulgare on September 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
UnEasyRider on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
It took me aback as well. At first glance, what seemed the male “Countess” had the same affect as reading Sir Evelyn Rothschild’s name the other day.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
you missed the point. ideas have consequences, and evolution has a boatload of consequences that extend far beyond science. to try to santize it and say ‘its just about science’ is to ignore the very bloody history of the last 150 years. Darwin’s idea has inspired people like Hitler and sanger to great evil. its ludicrous to deny what evolution hath wrought.
yeah right, tell that to Dawkins.
first, there are no evolutionary processes. you see what you wish to see. Lets talk about the defects in Watson, for example, or PZ Myers, that hate-filled anti-christian nutjob.
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM
maverick muse,
I don’t pick fights for fun. I also don’t require you to “submit to force”, convert to Islam etc.
You obviously feel it was unfair of me to make any demands on you to explain the meaning of your comment which is fair enough.
I’ll be more polite to you in the future if only to avoid the accusations of “bias”, my “misconstrued mindset”, the “chip on my shoulder” and my “ill will”.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
aengus
The British elites actively pursue eugenics whilst endorsing Sharia law.
I rebuke that path, and thank God America is not in lock step with either British socialist eugenics or acceptance and submission to Sharia.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM
No, Maxx, I was not making an argument for a socialized system. I was making an observation. Specifically, I was responding to Ed’s implicit suggestion that our system doesn’t ration care. That’s just wrong. Our system most emphatically rations care, as does every health care system in the world. It could hardly be otherwise.
Our system provides greater efficiency, higher quality and broader choice than the British system. I would not trade our system for theirs. But the notion that rationing is somehow unique to the British is bogus. What bureaucrats ration in Britain, the market rations here. That’s fine by me. But it happens, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
paul006 on September 19, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I agree with these statements.
However I think most people have the cause and effect mixed up. I think for instance that the endorsement of Sharia is a consequence rather than a cause of Islamisation.
Islamisation is caused by the presence of the Muslims themselves. Muslims have been permitted to settle in Britain. There is only one solution to this crisis – Muslims must be made to leave Britain.
Similarly the more that millions of Mexican reconquists are allowed into the US and given concessions the more likely it becomes that American politicians will endorse Atzlan post facto.
Also I would be against the projected 17,000 Muslim refugees coming to the US from Iraq.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Why is anyone surprised at her comments?
Since she is obviously not suffering from dementia (though I have my doubts) should she be required to do her duty & die if she did, I’m sure she’d be singing a different tune.
I wonder if it will ever end up as Soylent Green? It’s not so unimaginable anymore.
Badger40 on September 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM
BTW-pain & suffering are a part of life. We learn from the good & the bad.
Badger40 on September 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM
This person is an “ethicist” in the same sense that Adolf Hitler was an “ethicist”.
Personally, she sounds a bit senile.
Blaise on September 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I disagree. The scientific method is an understanding that is a common grace gift directly from God. Since everything in this world is His creation, the natural laws that we discover are also apart of that miraculous creation. He created it all for the purpose of displaying His own glory which is hardly morally neutral.
Are you a christian? If you are not…
It’s not just us anti-evolutionists who can be pig-headed. Fortunately for God’s children he replaces their hearts of stone with hearts of flesh and they begin to lose that pig-headedness.
I’m sure there are many but you are likely exaggerating. I’m curious where you get your poll results.
You are correct to say that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, if the scriptural creation account is turned into less than a literal interpretation. I am saying this as an old-earth non-Darwinist. The many that you suggest are often liberal in their theology and believe that scripture is less than inerrant. So I should bow with them because they bow to the evolutionists?
I find your dislike of his implying amusing considering that evolutionists insist that evolution must be true and religion must conform to their scientific conclusions if they desire to..
Science is great but some in the field have proceeded with experiments because they could rather than ceasing because they ought not. Somethings are unethical for the baker, policeman, politician, etc. and even the scientist.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Baroness Warnock is herself a practicing Christian according to this documentary who believes that parts of the Bible are not literal.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
you mean a christian like the archbishop of canterbury, who’s OK with sharia law?
thats a practicing christian the world loves…
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Yep.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Not sure where you are in England, I have relatives in Birmingham and they are just astounded at what is going on over there.
jewells45 on September 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM
they should get out, while they can.
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Thanks aengus for the pillar to set my argument upon. :) Your other posts here were good as well.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I appreciate you sharing your point of view in a polite way.
I think you and I are using the word “creation” differently. I’m Roman Catholic. We do not interpret the biblical account of creation literally, but we do believe that God created the universe.
I believe that God set into place all of the natural laws that govern the universe, so for me the chemical reactions by which a protein mutates, the thermodynamics that govern the folding of that mutated protein, and the downstream effects of that alter cells and organisms are the expression of God’s creation. God is infinite. I believe he set in motion a universe from which man arose in his image.
I respect that you have different beliefs.
But you’re right, this is off the topic of this thread.
Have a nice day.
Y-not on September 19, 2008 at 3:13 PM
…well…she’d better keep up the practice…she’s a looooooooong way from being a Christian in public….
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM
And cliches are for parrots.
Saltysam on September 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’m surprised but not completely. I had you for an atheist.
There may be a few Roman Catholics commenters who will be letting you know that you have incorrectly interpreted Rome’s position. I am not saying that to insult but to state a fact.
Your set in motion statement is interesting. Do you believe he set it in motion and helped it once in awhile to keep it going where he wanted? Does he still help it so? Or do you believe that the whole of creation from beginning, it’s present and it’s end are all carefully kept together? And where does man and his will play his part in this creation? How much is ordained by God?
I’m curious.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Uh, so is he volunteering to be the first to go or something?
SuperCool on September 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
what I find interesting is that catholics do not take the genesis account of creation literally, but of course take the statements about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood literally…
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM
It appears to me that Warnock (rhymes with warlock) needs to be the first to go, and stop wasting tax payer money! Hell I’ll even give the bullet, and pull the trigger myself if I have to!
Confederate on September 19, 2008 at 3:50 PM
So what would she say if some of her closest friends came to her and said, “We notice that you are a bit “slower” lately, we feel a little dementia setting in, how far do we go until we end it for you?”
Her response: “I think you are wrong I am fine”
And they say: “Yes, Yes, that is what they all say, but you can’t self diagnose dementia, by definition you are no longer capable”.
And she says: “Listen, I was just kidding…”
right2bright on September 19, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Ed, could you ask someone in the media IF they still believe that Check & Balances is important.
It WAS a very important ISSUE in 2002, 2004, and 2006..
Should it NOW be an Important ISSUE SINCE the Democrats Control BOTH Houses OF Congress and IF they Win would control All of it?
The ACLU is touting Checks & Balances as far back as 2002 from a web search, that i did.. So.. Where are all the stories now?
Chakra Hammer on September 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Dispense with the Catholic-baiting. It has no place here.
ManlyRash on September 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM
why is telling the truth catholic-baiting? do you work for obama???
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Thanks MR. Scratch your golden behind the ear for me.
Cheers.
Y-not on September 19, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Helped to die? Allowed to die? Those are tidy little euphemisms for “should be killed.”
How might persons suffering from dementia consider ending their lives? Would their decisions be considered competent in court? And if so, then why are they candidates for euthanasia?
Her argument is circular and illogical. And this woman is considered to be Britain’s leading moral philosopher? She reveals herself to be a candidate for her own suggestion.
cheeflo on September 19, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I don’t appreciate being slandered, but thats the MO of darwinists…
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM
no surprise you, or y-bother, cannot support your assertion.
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Baroness Warnock, you first.
/I know I’m not the only person to post it.
john1schn on September 19, 2008 at 4:26 PM
That’s a woman!?!
SuperCool on September 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I didn’t slander or insult anyone who believes in creationism. I tried not to get personal and didn’t make assumptions about someone’s education, religion, or whatnot that might affect their opinions on this topic. I certainly apologize if my comments were construed as personal attacks.
I accept that for some people the theory of evolution runs counter to their beliefs. I am not passing judgment on anyone’s religion. However, I would certainly do what I could do politically to stop creationism or intelligent design from being taught in a science class at a public school.
As for current Catholic doctrine about evolution, this statement that Pope Benedict XVI made last year addresses that topic.
Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a
somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism”
and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually ex-
clusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not
be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support
evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd
because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in
favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and
which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on
the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query,
especially the great philosophical question: where does every-
thing come from? And how did everything start which ultimate-
ly led to man?
Interested people can find Church teaching at the Vatican website, at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops website, or from any parish priest.
Y-not on September 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM
but you agree with MR that I ‘catholic-baited’. so you slandered me. what I said is true, and not ‘catholic baiting’
as far as catholics and evolution:
Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions,” he told a meeting of academics of different disciplines sponsored by the Paris Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Sciences
link<
and:
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
link
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Look out Jimma Carter, they’re coming to get you!
Claypigeon on September 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
of course you would. you darwinists are an intolerant lot who can’t win the argument so you have to sue, harass and silence the opposition.
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Well, if the fire department is expected to risk their lives to protect her home from fire…
then I guess that makes her a “burden to the state”.
I guess that makes us ALL a burden to the state in one shape or another.
Who decides who gets classified as a “burden to the state?
The Bronze Monkey?
(A Photo of the Bronze If Unfamiliar)
Saltysam on September 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Great comments.
Personally, however, I agree with the Baroness: She makes a good point for euthanizing everyone 84 years of age and older who have clearly lost their minds.
flicker on September 19, 2008 at 5:25 PM
please, self-medicate. seriously, you’ve wasted my time crazy english “Lady Warlock”
righthanddrive on September 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM
This leaves out, of course, Chris Reeves, Joni Earacksen Tada, Down’s babies and every veteran who might have lost his limbs fighting for his country.
flicker on September 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM
This is interesting. A lot of Roman Catholics I know do believe in a literal 6-day creation.
But have you every really researched the thermodynamics that govern the folding of the mutated protein?
From what I’ve read, I think you would have found that that thermodynamics alone cannot account for the activity necessary for the creation of the proteins we see. Their development by random chance is considered by the laws of probability so extraordinarily unlikely that it falls into the category of the impossible by scientific standards.
There simply has not nearly been enough time since the big bang for these complex proteins to come about without a guiding hand.
If you know differently, please let me know how it happened. Thanks.
flicker on September 19, 2008 at 5:49 PM
I think it is disgusting that this sort of talk is now being given credence because “one of them” is saying it – as if they can speak for all elderly or demented. They very fact that a person has dementia would tend to prove that he or she is not in a position to make such a choice.
My mother has dementia. After grieving the loss of the mother I knew, I stopped judging the quality of her life through my own eyes, and I see that she is free of pain, worldly concerns and seems to enjoy what life she has. The pleasures she has are small to be sure, but they are hers and she seems to enjoy them.
I see the reaction of my siblings, who have made a pact to make a pilgrimage and then drink some kool-aid to spare their children the pain that we are now enduring, but mostly, I think it is because at their present age, they cannot conceive of being ok with either being old or having dementia, but observation of those with dementia does not bear that fear out.
It is clear that my mother has moved on to a different part of her life that does not include us. In fact, seeing us reminds her of the person she used to be, and it upsets her. But, if I watch her unseen, I see someone who is content in her existence. If you asked her if she wanted to die to relieve us of the burden of visiting her, or guilt of not visiting her, I’m thinking she would say no. She has her own life now – visit or not, but she has her own relationships within her world.
A couple of months ago, she broke her hip, and had surgery. Afterward, she was not eating or drinking enough to sustain her, so hospice was recommended for her. Although she has become skin and bones, and we thought her end was near, the instinct for life is strong in her and gradually, she is making a come back at 86! I have been at the nursing home nearly every day through her crisis, and I now have a much different view of growing old than I used to. Not one of those people in that nursing home look like they are begging to be put down. It might not be the life that you would think you want at this present time in your life, but how do you know how you will feel when you are there? You can’t know what is going on in their minds, or how they feel. But because someone outside can judge the quality of the life of another gives them the right to extinguish it?
Queen0fCups on September 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
if you are really interested in understanding this, here is a comprehensive discussion on the subject form the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the Interpretation of the bible
neuquenguy on September 19, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »