Wolves Made Redundant

as shepherd steps in on the wrong side of the assisted suicide debate in UK

“In issuing these Guidelines, it is clear that the DPP has listened very carefully to, and taken account of, the many representations made to him during the consultation. Our particular concerns were that the interim Guidelines gave less protection under the law to disabled or seriously ill people, and to those who had a history of suicide attempts and were likely to try again. There also appeared to be a presumption that a spouse or close relative would always act simply out of compassion and never from selfish motives. These factors have been removed from the new Guidelines which now give greater protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Orwell's Picnic Readers' Poll:

1) Stupid

2) Politically naive

3) Maliciously on the side of the Devil


hmmmm...

tough choice.


Paul Tully from SPUC:

"The focus on motivation (why the suspect assisted a suicide) rather than intention (the suspect's deliberate will to assist the suicide) is a radical departure from the rule of law. The 'victim’s wish to die' is the most significant factor now in the guidelines. It undermines the law, and is the main concession that the euthanasia lobby was seeking. It makes assisted suicide very different from other serious crimes against the person, where consent to becoming a victim is not accepted either as a defence in court or as a factor against prosecution."

Just this morning, on the way to the train station, I was talking to a friend. He said that these DPP guidelines mean that there is no way the English bishops can remain on the fence. They can't avoid taking a side now.

I responded, "Yep. And I'd certainly be willing to slap down twenty Euros or so on them getting on the wrong one."

I just sent him a note saying, "Should have made it 50 and shaken on it".