Assisted dying debate is a step toward 'barbarism' | Peter Hitchens
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- “That would be a grave step away from civilisation and towards barbarism.”
Peter Hitchens argues against assisted dying, saying energy should be put into better “palliative care”.
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.c...
📍 Subscribe to our channel - / @listentotimesradio
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.c...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.c...
![[Part 3/5] Debate: Peter Hitchens argues 'Great' Britain is a fantasy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JAXnpZlcGp0/mqdefault.jpg)
The idea that euthanasia is not happening all the time anyway is naive. What do these people think all the huge doses of morphine people are given when they are screaming in pain from their terminal cancer is actually for?
People have always had the right, we don't need any laws permitting govt or doctors to do this as a form of treatment.
Isn't the whole point, that people don't want a long death? For those of us that don't want a long death, why can't we choose now whilst we're healthy and of sound state of mind? It's terrible watching someone suffer for years just begging for it to be over.
I keep wondering whether Peter Hitchens would be listened to in the slightest if Christopher wasn't his brother and made the surname famous.
It should be choice..which can be decided in earlier life…(Don’t confuse abortion with assisted dying..Peter). Even your religious connections can’t help those who need help desperately when alive! So live your life let others live theirs..You don’t even know individuals who want
Assisted dying so how can you deny their need for CHOICE? As well many people who can’t afford going abroad will be denied it! Money
again makes everything possible…by those who have it !
Based Hitchens
Listen to Peter Hitchens for I am he
We already have assisted dying and it’s called the NHS waiting lists.
Reality is, it's not about the length of life, it's the quality. There's fates worse than death and if a person is suffering from a terminal illness of any kind or a life changing disability that leaves them not even living a life, they should have the right to end it on their terms with their family around them.
You can easily put into law to protect vulnerable people, the elderly and outright ban anyone who's depressed having this as an option. We don't let animals we love suffer, so don't sit there on your high and mighty virtue signalling horse saying a human suffering can't be given a dignified way out.
Once it's in law, it has the potential of being amended by governments that aren't in power yet. Just look at Canada. It has euthanised over 50,000 people. They just keep adding new medical conditions that can be "treated" by it.
They're euthanising the poor FFS, and people who regret transgender surgeries. @@vivian9187
Yes, it is cruelly ridiculous.
You first Bozo.
The fact that you actually think that you can easily make laws to protect the vulnerable from being conviently euthanised identifies you as a person who should never have any say in this discussion, I'm afraid. And I sincerely hope you never experience being a vulnerable person because you are not prepared for reality.
Seems like Mr. Hitchens is afraid for his own life.
@@captainbingo100, nope, he's just wise enough to know that it'll be abused.
Well, he knows he is a flawed human being, like the rest of us .That is why he thinks there should be laws in place to protect society from human frailty and selfishness.
Both men are correct.
How is it we can have mercy towards our beloved pets when they are suffering, even though they are unable to give their consent, yet we can't respect the wish of a human being who wants to end their misery in a medically hopeless situation?
How could a pet possibly give consent? If you thought that was an intelligent question, it's little wonder you're in favour of assisted dying.
@@SagaciousFrank Its a poor analogy yes, but in the case of animals, consent is implied, for that very reason. Assisted dying does not work that way, it must and does require the mental capacity to make an informed decision.
@@inabsentia439 , abuse involves lying as well. How would anyone be sure that someone didn't consent but was terminated anyway? People lie, including doctors and nurses. The most prolific serial murderer in the UK was a GP.
@@SagaciousFrank Laws seem to be working for other countries with assisted dying, is the UK prone to serial killers and evil types more than others?
Google "Alex O'Connor interview Peter Hitchens" - absolute crybully
It's wild how immature he looks compared to a guy less than half his age.
Hey Hitchens, you mouth on legs. You don't have to use this method If you don't wish to, It's not compulsory. But don't be so arrogant as to make other people's choice for them. That Is ''Barbarism''.
I remember my great-grandmother dying of cancer (I was about 9)… She was in such an agony that she was begging for euthanasia, that she obviously couldn’t obtain (it’s also illegal in my country of origin). All we could do was to just give her her morphine and wait until the cancer is going to do it’s thing. She had zero chances of recovery (also due to her age). Seriously, advocating against euthanasia is barbaric.
He’s right.
@@roninhood1027Except he isn't, his views on any social issue are straight from 1876
@@JimMorrisonsboots That doesn’t make them wrong.
@@JimMorrisonsboots, we all know euthanasia gets abused it's been shown in countries that have it.
Many ‘barbaric’ European countries such as the Netherlands allow assisted dying. Perhaps we should look at how our neighbours address this issue and not be so closed minded.
Yep. We could ask Germany. They were very efficient at assisted dying
@@vivian9187 What a asinine comment!
Can someone tell him he can make these decisions for himself but not for others.
He has an authoritarian, narcissistic personality, believes in the sanctity of conservative authority, hierarchy no doubt and believes that he knows best because he and he alone is Peter Hitchens
Wondering why ANYONE listens to him.
None of his business!
@@joycemanning1254, Do you understand how debate works?
Why are animal keepers and farmers held to a higher standard when treating their animals than the human equivalent? If a farmer prolonged the suffering of any animal the RSPCA and anyone sensible would be up in arms and would seek a prosecution. Yet sick humans are doomed to suffer to the bitter and very often most painful end, even when given the best of palliative care. It is absolutely ridiculous the way we treat people whose life has become intolerable to themselves. People like Hitchens make my blood boil.
Animals have and always will be treated abonimably in farms. That's why you're argument is an argument against making laws to assist someone to die. Because it will absolutely certainly be abused by those looking to gain from another person's death.
@@vivian9187 People are treated abominably as well. Neither the poor treatment of either species is general but legally animals have far better protection than humans and anybody treating animals at their end of life as people are generally, not exceptionally treated, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. ‘People’ just suffer both physically and mentally, often in exceptionally undignified ways that just are not allowed of animals. Of course you get the odd rogue, mainly dog farms and elderly farmers that can no longer cope with their animals making headlines, but precisely because they have been caught. Similarly you have old people and the mentally deficient in the headlines occasionally due to their gross mistreatment. This has nothing to do with the general rule that farmers and domestic animal keepers are not allowed to prolong the suffering of animals yet it is expected by some people that human life is prolonged even if against the wishes of the terminally ill.
@hedydd2 the heart of the problem is not whether individual people should have access to assisted dying but whether governments and other people will abuse a law that gives certain people the right to remove life. And the answer to that is clearly yes they will. History shows us over and over again the terrible things that happen whenever people have the opportunity to dispose of their enemies or make money at the expense of others. That's why assisted dying has been such a taboo subject. Governments should never have their hands on this type of power.
Re: 'barbarism' as its been presented in this interview; I would suggest that its the other way around.
As an expat Brit-Canadian, I'm so grateful that here in 'civilized' Canada, we have: 'The Option.'
Several of my friends have taken it, & I'll take it too, if necessary.
Take a closer look at Canada - the extension and the proposed
Extensions are deeply worrying, especially in relation to mental health as it in essence reduces the pressure for appropriate treatment. Treatment to relieve pain in countries where diamorphine is legal for that purpose and there is good palliative care is entirely possible. In Australia, palliative care is very limited and diamorphine wholly illegal we have ‘voluntary assisted dying’ Go figure
They are killing people in Canada's MAID program for something as trivial as Depression. And 40% of Canadians believe in euthanizing Homeless people to "relieve pressure" on the Housing Market.
That's Barbaric
The hallmark of a truly civilized and caring nation can be gauged by looking at the way in which they treat their most vulnerable citizens. This has to include those for whom life is no longer bearable and who wish end their suffering in a dignified and controlled manner. To deny such a choice is inhumane. Palliative care is vital and comforting for the majority and will continue to be so. An assisted dying program poses no threat whatsoever - it merely provides choice for the minority of people who would rather die. The arguments against assisted dying are either weak or based on religious dogma - in either case, they demonstrate an absence of humanity and empathy. I'm surprised that this interview was so biased - what happened to the notion of 'balance'?
Talk to older people about how they think of life just going on and on, whether terminally ill or not. As an older person I am quite sure that we should have a choice under any circumstances. The sooner the better.
A big reason why Peter never achieved the broad appeal of his brother is that Christopher was able to countenance opposing views on issues without sliding into absolute absurd hyperbole, which indeed we have an absolute superfluity of in modern culture.
It's a strange line to walk of being an erudite intellectual type and also a hysterical pearly clutcher
Christopher Hitchens , was a great advocate of women having control over there reproductive capacity , of which abortion is one such method ( admittedly rather a crude method now ) which is meant they could prevent themselves sliding into poverty ! One of the brothers, went to Oxford , the other didn’t ….i think we can see who is the most erudite 😳!
When Christopher named his book "religion poisons everything" wasn't that absurd hyperbole?
Wrong. Christopher was extremely dismissive and rude to his opponents. He just had views that were generally much more popular in the society of his time than Peter.
@@decekfrokfr3mdx Dismissive and rude in his demeanour, not hyperbolic and absurd in argument
I'm sorry you come from a country that doesn't have drinkable tap water and can't understand nuance in English
Peter Hitchens believes in fairytales aka god
That's barbarism
It should be up to the person to decide
Is it even a Peter Hitchens Video comments sections without, "did you see his interview with Alex Connor?" (The irony of course being that Mr O'Connor was ill-prepared and totally out of his depth), attacks on him personally and never his actual argument is. What else? "He's old, he's a hack, he looks like an imperialist"... Oh and lets not forget everybody's favourite - the dead brother jibes.
As someone said "Christopher is for teenagers and college students as someone who can eloquently and rather humorously justify their hedonism. Peter is there for you, only when you're ready to grow-up."
Peter Hitchens needs to accept that he'll always be in the shadow of his brother and his opinions on subjects like this and addiction are unfortunate.
Abortion and euthanasia are two sides of the same coin.
Palliative care in the UK consists pretty much of leaving you entirely to your own devices in the UK as far as I can see.
I've lost count of the number of times that I've been pressured for getting a DNR, including the threat of leaving a hole in my jaw from a broken tooth and an absess without treatment until I get a DNR!!!!!!
Bore off Hitchens… your wrong much more than your right these days. Losing it mate
Speak for yourself.
@@jacobmojapelo2448 I am 👍🏻
@@JoeWedgwood-ik9zo good. I'm glad you realise you're wrong about Peter Hitchens.
@@jacobmojapelo2448 nah, he’s just a boring, miserable contrarian these days. I am speaking for myself though 👍🏻
Ironic that the 'course of nature' was mentioned. If nature were allowed to take it's course without medical intervention many of these people would not remain tortured for so long. So which is more 'barbaric', allowing nature to take it's course or artificially maintaining someone's suffering?
Well said , the paradox of modern medicine . A lot of these terrible diseases appear in later life , MND , Parkinson’s disease , the spectrum of cancers .
We already have assisted dying. It’s called Do Not Resuscitate
Assisted dying problems arent that it wont work, it's that it will work too well. It starts with long terminal illness, why not depression, why not anorexia, why not a general unwillingnessto live. What about chronic back pain. Im wheelchair bound and i dont want to live anymore etc...Who are you to decide if i dont want to live any more...you cant feel my pain. This wont end well not to mention the burden grandparents often feel when their sons and daughters travel to see them
"I do understand", how can you if you are not in this position?
Not sure I've EVER agreed with Peter Hitchens on anything. Unlike his late brother, who I agreed with almost always. Peter Hitchens is like the pollar opposite of Christopher Hitchens. Anyway, I think assisted dying is the humane thing to do in certain circumstances. Seems obvious to me. 'A step towards barbarism' seems like the opposite of what assisted dying would mean.
Indeed. Prolonging the life of an animal whose life has become intolerably painful or whose quality of life has gone is, by law, deemed cruel and punishable through Courts and the RSPCA would not hesitate taking a prosecution forward. Yet when it comes to humans, even perfectly rational ones that are either near the end of their life or have no quality of life or are in constant pain, the opposite is true thus far.
Instead of bringing this hack every week just show his brother old videos. I guarantee you you will have millions more views.
It's so unfortunate that the wrong Hitchens Is still alive.
@user-ug3cc6vq5j Can you try and compose a legible sentence?
@user-ug3cc6vq5j you're just making the argument stronger
@user-ug3cc6vq5j Go away you silly Troll
Classic
That's only because Christopher told simpletons like yourself what you wanted to hear.
Discussion of this topic is absolutely necessary, and I myself am uncertain about my own position. However, wheeling out people like the reactionary Peter Hitchens to give us the benefit of his half-baked and uninformed opinions is not, in my view, the way to do it.
Because you disagree with him, basically?
The euthanasia debate is not about whether it’s moral or not. Anyone suffering from illness or disability with no hope of recovery of respite would rather choose death.
The problem is how a society pragmatically can make sure that a system that allows for people to have assisted dying cannot be abused.
I want the damn choice. My life, my body, end of story! I've seen enough death of animal companions and family members to know what I want. Even my grandmother who was one who did eventually die in her sleep at 91, had enough by the time she was 80 and started with dementia. She was constantly confused wouldn't leave her house and spent 11 years in a prison in her own head. She said she had, had enough! Not everyone wants to live with mental and physical and terminal illness until the bitter end
Matt Hancock minister for Assisted Dying.
I'm sure Gerard is wrong, people are not being encouraged to die. He claims to understand about unbearable pain and suffering but wishes to perpetuate it! I have been an admirer of Peter Hitchens for some time now but I do feel that his argument on this issue is very weak and it demonstrates an absence of compassion and humanity.
6:22 "would changing the law make us more humane, or would it make us more like Canada?".
The inhumane, barbaric hellhole... of Canada.
These DNR's are wrong.
This man is lying about my country the Netherlands.
One thing that unites opponents of assisted dying is that they are invariably not in the agonies of end stage cancer or dementia.
Peter, the only reason you're here, is because you're Dad didn't know what Condoms were
It’s simple, don’t change the law, but leave medics to be freer to exercise judgment. As soon as everything has to be written down in a new law, we lose the flexibility required to hold the line in a proper way and to allow human judgment to intervene in exceptional circumstances. Value life because it comes from God.
Why does Peter's God seems indifferent to suffering and pain on his earthly creations.
Peter, like his brother Christopher, is a contrarian so it’s no surprise that he’s opposed to assisted dying, but maybe Peter hasn’t had to watch a loved one die in abject misery, with absolutely no quality of life whatsoever. We wouldn’t allow an animal to suffer like that, so surely we should grant people autonomy too?
It's a shame this is the Hitchens brother we are stuck with.
yet another topic for Hitchens to make a complete fool of himself about. Who is paying this man for his trenchant nonsense?
_‘Would we be more humane or would we be more like Canada?’_ is a massive condemnation of Canada, albeit a thoroughly deserved one.
Carthago delenda est.
It's really simple. See how it's going in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. Note the issues they're facing. Don't repeat their mistakes.
Been expecting this so called debate for a while usually it doesn't go anywhere, although palliative care is grossly inadequate in my experience!
I live in Canada where we have MAID ( medical assistance in Dying). There are strict guidelines, and requires 2 physicians assessments. The patient always has the final decision and can change their mind at any step in the process. Personally, I think it would be useful for anyone debating this issue, to have had the experience of watching a loved one go through an incredibly difficult end of life. You might change your mind.
@@dianelewis9458
I've heard about your crazy eugenics pogrom, sounds mental and in the report I saw it was actually saying that Dr's were competing for how many deaths they'd 'assisted'
Imagine losing Christopher and being left with this unenlightened fool.
Imagine being so boring and unoriginal that you have to resort to the old 'The wrong brother died!' line.
If you'd like an easy shortcut to a moral compass, just take any of Peter Hitchen's views and reverse them. Voila - you have a conscience.
Why can't these pepple just off themselves without others involved? Cobain managed it and many others i can't recall atm
And what a lovely surprise the person finding cobain brains splattered all over the ceiling 🙄 is that how you would like a love one to find you?
I'm sure you moan about welfare spending and disability payments. If there are people who hate being a burden on family/state, and have no desire to live on with zero joy in life, but don't want to put their families through suey side, wouldn't it be a win/win for state/individual to come to an amicable solution to end the cost/pain?
A way in which assisted dying becomes barbaric and inexcusable, is when AI, on line abuse or forms of intentional and targeted “terror” emerge which cause people, of any age, and of good health, to even consider the need to ‘take their lives’. This relates especially to our youth who ought to be protected from this.
Moreover, the ethical debate around the right to life -and live-, and the position of the Church are to be considered for the best and most ethical solutions to emerge.
If we primarily consider the many forms of suffering, humanity will find reasonable solutions.
The ignorance of people like Caroline Lucas holding sway and the comments below show that we are heading towards the end of our Civilization.
They’re deleting comments, to give a false impression of public opinion.
"i completely understand people who are suffering from a terminal illness who are suffering". Unless you're actually going through it or witnessing it's process first hand, you can't even imagine what it is like.
As the Tipu Sultan said better to live 1 day as a lion than 100 years a sheep. Life is about quality and when that is gone people like me demand the right to die. In my own country and in a medical facility without leaving some poor sod to deal with what remains if I do it at home.
Didn't know Vic Mackey had diverged into journalism.
I don't see an issue it's about time the government let us decide what's right for use and our families
As if we lost Chrhstopher Hitchens and got stuck with tool of a Hitchens.
You call Peter a tool, yet it was his not so perceptive brother who admired Tony Blair of all people. Oh, and illegal foreign invasions and politicians who bullied a respected weapons specialist into killing himself. Forever the Stalinist was our Chris.
If Hitchens himself suddenly found that he was in the awful position of having a terminal condition which may render him unable to walk, feed and toilet himself and possibly to even speak, to be able to enjoy life and be in the position he is in now to put forward his forthright opinions in the media, his views nay be different than they are now. People should be free to make their own choices on such personal matters.
I doubt it.
The tragedy of Peter Hitchens life is that he's been right about more or less everything - and been ignored every time.
I fear extremely dodgy doctors will use this to their advantage
Wherever assisted dying exists it has put immense power in the hands of some dark people and there have been attempts to expand it.
Hitchens is right about mission creep. It starts off as exceptional, and ends up being normalised and used in ways it wasn't intended for. When you add in money and legal Wills it becomes even more muddied.
My God, I'm actually agreeing with Peter Hitchens!
This guy really has no idea what he’s talking about.