How to die 2
Ethics & Morality

How to Die: BBC "sensitively" screens assisted suicide, so why not broadcast an abortion?

 

How To Die: Simon’s Choice was filmed over the last few months of Simon Binner’s life, following his diagnosis of motor neurone disease, all set against the backdrop of last year’s parliamentary debates on assisted suicide. Let’s not pretend we can really imagine how difficult his decision was. With a wife vehemently opposed to the slippery legal slope toward euthanasia, Simon Binner’s autonomous assertion of when and how he would die in order to end his unbearable suffering must have torn his family apart.

This wasn’t Eastenders, with its hyped ‘issues’, cardboard drama and plastic cast. No, millions of BBC viewers watched a real person flick an effectual switch and really die. He closed his eyes right there in front of ours, while his distraught but brave wife held his hand and watched him slip away. It was a real-life, self-made deathbed, and it all seemed so orderly, ethical and legit – at least the broadcasting made it so, which was, of course, the BBC’s purpose. This wasn’t human action morally scrutinised, but political policy advanced emotively. How to Die wasn’t so much concerned with how to die as why on earth not? “The saddest programme I’ve ever seen… but it was right for him,” affirmed the twitterati. Thank God for the Eternal Spirit Suicide Clinic.

Patrick Holland, Head of the BBC’s documentary commissioning, justifed How to Die with appeals to the importance and magnitude of dilemma: He told the Guardian: “This is a hugely important and powerful film about one of the most contentious issues facing families in the UK. Simon, his wife, family and friends have allowed us into their lives as they face one of the biggest dilemmas imaginable. Together they confront the terrible choices involved, with love and humbling candour.”

Adam Barker, BBC2 channel editor, added: “BBC2 has a strong track record of showing ambitious, compelling authored singles such as Vanessa Engle’s film on domestic violence or Robb Leech’s film, Welcome to the Mosque and we’re very proud to be bringing this thought-provoking film from award-winning film-makers Rowan Deacon and Colin Barr to the channel. The film sensitively explores the issue of assisted suicide with intimate access to one family facing up to one of the toughest decisions there is to make.”

So the utterly heart-breaking How to Die was a sensitive exploration of a contentious issue with intimate access to how people confront a terrible choice. How many phone calls did the Samaritans receive afterwards? Will bookings to Dignitas or the Eternal Spirit Clinic now increase? Will flights to Switzerland received a bit of a boost?

If this sort of “dignified”, “thought-provoking”, “remarkable” TV documentary is justified (and it may well be), when will the BBC sensitively follow a pregnant woman through her BPAS or Marie Stopes counselling? When will they explore the views of her distraught partner as he weeps and longs for the chance to become a father? When will they broadcast the contentious performance and harrowing process of carrying out an abortion, and justify it all to the Guardian on the grounds of it being “ambitious”, “compelling”, “groundbreaking” TV journalism of “one of the toughest decisions there is to make”?

Or is it that changing the law on abortion is simply not on the BBC’s political agenda?

  • Anton

    So why doesn’t the BBC show ISIS’s executions?

    • Uncle Brian

      Because they don’t want to be accused of “Islamophobia”.

    • Dreadnaught

      Yes they should maybe then people will realise it could be happening here as it did in Bosnia and Croatia and is happening in a dozen countries in the name of Islam. They show the horrors of WW2 without pixelating the faces and corpses of the dead and dying without a seconds thought.

      • CliveM

        Ahh but the Second World War was in black and white. Colour hadn’t been invented, so it wasn’t real.

        At least that is how the 30 something Producers at the BBC will see it.

        • Anton

          I’ve a DVD called “World War 2 in colour.” And the magnificent Colonel Blimp film made in colour in 1943 shows wartime London.

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t being entirely serious you know?

            Ps I also have the Colonel Blimp DVD!

          • Anton

            Great film, isn’t it?!

          • CliveM

            Yes it is. The wife can’t stand it, but then I don’t think she gets it.

            All a bit subversive.

          • Anton

            It was thought so at the time (as you probably know) for its portrayal of a good German, even though he couldn’t have been more anti-Nazi. I love Powell/Pressburger films.

          • CliveM

            Their is something slightly off centre or unsettling about all their films. Black Narcisus being a prime example. But I agree with you, I like their films as well.

            I seem to remember reading that Churchill was wary of the film. Of course the film was also a dig at old attitudes and old ways of doing things.

          • Anton

            I love the scene where he shows Theo round his trophy room, with the heads of umpteen species of animal he has shot on the wall and among them a portrait of his wife. (Would that be the scene that put yours off?)

          • CliveM

            She just doesn’t get it. It’s to off centre for her. It’s a film that needs repeated viewing to take it al in. Indeed it’s necessary to full appreciate it.

            I love it. She’s out tonight, I think I might watch it!

          • CliveM

            Ps I really like the dualling scene.

          • Anton

            I like the lot. Spud’s magnificently rude comment about an army marching on its stomach, addressed to all the old boys in the sauna, is hilarious. And Theo’s monologue to the civil servant deciding whether he be deported is moving.

            Can’t beat Barry Lyndon for duels…

          • CliveM

            Roger Livesey was great in it. Subtle and sympathetic. Great voice to.

            Also liked him in ‘i know where I’m going’

          • Anton

            They ‘aged’ him very well.

          • Anton

            Now here is the lake, and I still haven’t changed.

          • CliveM

            Poignant.

            Btw you call yourself Anton, out of curiosity and as a long shot, is the inspiration of this Anton Walbrook?

          • Anton

            Not at all. It’s not only me who calls me Anton!

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t sure if it was your real name or an on line name. Tbh I had always assumed real.

          • Anton

            There is nothing like a war for turning an army from a social hierarchy into a meritocratic one.

          • CliveM

            Well if it’s a major war! They had to actually start running out of ‘the right sort’ in The Great War, before real change started happening. All reverted back after of course.

          • Anton

            But the right sort, even if unimaginative, were brave, at least at lower officer level. Those officers actually LED their men “over the top” into the machine gun fire when the order was given. (One even punted a rugby ball ahead of the charge!) They had to be well liked by their own men too, for more of them were shot in the back in those circumstances than mainstream histories state – at least according to a friend whose father was one.

          • CliveM

            You should read Six Weeks by John Lewis Stempel on this subject. Very moving. How so many tried to do right by their men and right by their faith and Country. One of my favourite books on WW1.

          • Anton

            I very well might; thank you. But don’t waste time chatting to me – watch the Blimp film, it’s long.

          • CliveM

            Interestingly although German patrols were led by their equivalent of an NCO, British Patrols always had to be led by an officer. His life expectancy was shorter then his men.

          • William Lewis

            A Canterbury Tale has a great scene walking through war torn Canterbury. I got a “box set” of Powell/Pressburger films for Christmas. Must watch Colonel Blimp now it has been recommended. Perhaps when my wife is out :).

          • Anton

            She’ll need to be out for nearly 3 hours. It goes well with whisky. Red Shoes and Black Narcissus are my two other favourites, but they all repay watching.

          • Little Black Censored

            And “I Know Where I’m Going”.

        • Dreadnaught

          Quite so.

    • sarky

      I would think it’s because of the damage to vulnerable people/children, that inadvertently watching one could cause.

    • DanJ0

      Why on earth would they? They’re murders of people with families and friends. So what purpose would it serve, other than to traumatise people who inadvertently saw it, remove the dignity of the person involved, and make a spectacle of the murder for their friends and family?

      • Anton

        Er, I wasn’t advocating it. Just suggesting that it’s the logical next step for the BBC if they are going to go in for snuff movies.

        • DanJ0

          Is that how you saw the documentary: as the equivalent of a snuff movie? Really?

  • dannybhoy

    I deliberately didn’t post on Boko Haram burns children alive, but no EU ‘open door’ to Nigerian refugees
    because I was struggling with the absolute deluge of worldwide information and what my response to it should be.
    I see a young child washed up on the beach, cold and dead.
    Then I find out that his father was also a refugee from Syria who found a lucrative living ferrying desperate people from Turkey to Greece, and took his children along for the ride..
    Then I see a little girl burned to death by idiots probably high on drugs or whatever, who view life as of no value and suffering as inconsequential compared to the greater glory of serving their god who couldn’t give a stuff for them either..
    I read about desperately ill people going to Switzerland to end their life, and find out there are all sorts of squabbles going on behind the scenes of Dignitas..
    Then I think,
    O Lord Jesus who as the Son of God allowed Himself to live amongst us and allowed us desperate people to put Him to death, have mercy on us.

  • CliveM

    I didn’t see the programme, so can’t talk about it directly, but I understand from people who have that he was suffering from MND. A truly awful and frightening decease. I have some experience of it, through the death of my mother in law. So will make some comments with reference to that.

    The unbearable suffering for her, wasn’t the physical (although there was some of that, which could be controlled), but the emotional. The slow decline, the loss of capabilities, with the fear of a slow, choking death at the end. I remember the day she ceased being able to suck on a straw, her water. She fell asleep for a nap able to do so, when she woke up, she couldn’t. It was devastating for her.

    What frightened her was the fear of how she was going to die. Choking to death, desperately trying to breath. The fear of this was so strong, the Doctors had to put her on strong anti-anxiety drugs. Towards the end and with her death clearly close, these drugs ceased to help. Her anxiety, fear, became unbearable for her. It was at this stage a Doctor decided to advise her that she did have an option. He could pump a drug into her that would take away her anxiety, but would cause her to go into an increasing deep sleep. Unfortunately with no treatment available and with her breathing muscles getting increasingly weak, she would never wake up. She would lose the ability to breath and die. Sooner then she otherwise would. It is normal for MND sufferers to be given this sort of option close to the end.

    So I ask the question, or questions. Why couldn’t she have been told this at her diagnosis, or soon after. The family has asked itself that question often, believing that this would of helped ease her suffering to know this. Did the gentleman in the film know that this would be an end of life option for him? Did the BBC make this clear, or would telling us this, muddy the message it wanted to get out?

    I don’t blame anyone wanting to ease their death, when what they have been shown is so frightening. I do blame those who know better. Firstly for (at least) occasionally not making clear that the end, doesn’t have to be so distressing and for the BBC, for using this fear as propaganda.

    • CliveM

      I should also have said, without the BBC being clear as to the real end of life options, today it is probable that people will be receiving MND diagnosis, which will be more frightening and distressing then it needs be.

    • DanJ0

      My mother died of bowel cancer which metastasised onto her lungs, such that she needed a nebuliser towards the end. She was very scared of dying through being unable to breathe. Her doctor promised her that she wouldn’t be aware of it if that happened, and she was well dosed up with morphine towards the end. I expect the doctor was prepared to give it in sufficient quantity to effectively kill her if necessary. The doctor was correct in what she said about suffering and awareness, thank goodness.

      • CliveM

        In my limited experience, it is the fear of dying, not death, that causes the distress. I’m glad the doctors were able to give your mother a comfortable death.

        It’s a sobering fact, we all die of something, and it’s frequently not pleasant.

        I think in this debate, people need to remember that.

        • Ivan M

          That is why we have morphine. Fear of death is itself not an excuse to speed it up.

          • CliveM

            Did I say it was?

            My point is unless more work is done with regards advice and support, with proper honesty, people are going to continue being frightened.

            You need to understand why people are afraid and address that. Simply saying assisted suicide is wrong, won’t cut it.

            I do btw think it is wrong.

          • Ivan M

            I do not want to be offensive but really no amount of counselling is going to take away the fear. Turning to some kind of religion is the only way to help.

  • Dreadnaught

    Is it that changing the law on abortion is simply not on the BBC’s political agenda?

    I don’t think that it is within the remit of the BBC to undertake changing the law on any issue or indeed to have a political agenda. That’s not to say that certain issues get special treatment from this once bastion of British integrity and reportage. There is a report published today that castigates the Trust for being toothless in regulating the egoists and minority majorettes that have earned the BBC its sorry reputation for stifling free speech to placate politically correct editors.
    I totally agree that abortion should be shown for the destructive gory act it is; maybe then it will actually have meaning. They have televised live operations before now, so why not tell all the of facts life and stop all this pussyfooting round adult topics that they insist on censoring. Even the programme last night was censored at the end possibly at the request of the widow – who knows.
    I don’t want them to make a report then excuse the graphic content that is used to sanitise and ‘shield’ the votaries from the reality of abortions, death, self assisted death, war and its aftermath and anything else as long as the truth is told.

    • sarky

      Just as a point, it was the samaitans that got the programme censored, due to it breaking regulations on the portrayel of suicide.

  • The BBC should be sent to one of these clinics and sensitively brought to its end.

    • James60498 .

      I gave you an uptick, but am wondering whether I can remove it.

      There shouldn’t be any sensitivity at all about bringing the BBC to an end.

      • I don’t like to be unkind!

        • James60498 .

          Normally I would agree.

          But this is the BBC

    • Anton

      Newsflash, 2017: The BBC was recently disconnected from its life support apparatus, otherwise known as the license fee. After a short while it ceased to breathe. Many of its organs will be usable as transplants, however.

  • Findaráto

    Why not broadcast an abortion?

    No, really. Why not?

    • Anton

      You can already see one on YouTube. It’s called The Silent Scream.

      • Findaráto

        The film to which you refer is a piece of anti-abortion propaganda that purports to show a 12 week old fetus react in pain. This is impossible as pain is processed in the cerebral cortex and 12 week old fetuses don’t yet have a cerebral cortex. In fact they barely have a brain stem. They’re not capable of purposeful movement. They certainly can’t scream or react in any way to stimulus. They’re just an undeveloped and inert sac of rudimentary organ systems with no consciousness.

        If a film about an abortion were to be shown on television, it certainly shouldn’t be this pack of lies, which is designed to manipulate people into thinking that early term abortion is the murder of a thinking, feeling baby.

        • …. and what of later term abortions?

          • Findaráto

            I’ve alway supported a limit of around 20-22 weeks on abortion. Any later than that and the fetal brain and nervous system have developed to a point where it can be considered capable of independent life.

            Late term abortions are relatively rare in the UK, I believe. They’re more common in the US. Terminating a pregnancy just days before the birth is due seems to me to be analogous to murder in that were the baby born, it would survive, therefore it can react to stimuli and is capable of independent life, therefore the state should protect that life.

            But then I don’t make abortion laws. Neither do you. So we’ll just have to live with them as they are. Forty years of agitating and complaining by the Pro-Life movement hasn’t made any appreciable difference to the law.

          • Abortion is legal in the United Kingdom up to 24 weeks. However, if there is a substantial risk to the woman’s life or foetal abnormalities there is no time limit. None. There is also no age limit for treatment. Marie Stopes Clinics will offer confidential treatment to girls aged as young as 12 years old.

          • sarky

            Foetal abnormalities would be picked up long before 24 weeks.

          • Just citing the law as it stands. Why not reduce the age limit to 12 weeks as it is in some countries? It would be a start.

          • sarky

            Totally agree.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Kinda like saying that the child can only be abused up to the age of 12.

          • It’s a start, Martin. It’s a start.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Unfortunately it shows an ignorance of science and a failure to understand the nature of Man. It is done for the wrong reason.

          • At the moment you’ll never persuade the electorate to recriminalize abortion. However, you may get support for reducing the age limit to 12 weeks. This would be a move in the right direction and reduce the numbers of those murdered by approximately 10% per year.

          • Martin

            HJ

            I think if people were to learn that the foetus is a baby, perhaps by the media publicising it ….

          • Agreed, Martin. There are too many vested interests in hiding the reality of abortion. It’s not an either/or approach Jack is suggesting. We should be seeking to reduce the upper limit on abortion whilst also educating people about its reality.

          • sarky

            Don’t be so stupid.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Nothing stupid about it, it’s just that your ‘morality’ only goes so far.

          • Findaráto

            A twelve year old girl can have an abortion without her parents being involved in the decision? If that’s true, there would seem to be grounds for altering the law. But is it true, or is it just more spin from the usual suspects?

            I don’t support late term abortion due to fetal abnormality unless the abnormality is so devastating that the baby won’t survive once it’s born.

            And I don’t think a late term fetus should be aborted for any reason other than a grave risk to the life of the woman carrying it. I know the some doctors take advantage of the law as it stands to claim a risk of psychological harm when really there is none and it’s just a ruse to bypass the 24 week limit. But if after 24 weeks the fetus becomes capable of independent life (and I believe that babies born prematurely at 24 weeks have about a 50% chance of surviving) then that life should be protected.

            Rare cases of prem babies being born at 21 weeks and surviving have been recorded, but given the difficulty of accurately determining time of conception, it’s more than likely they were really 22-24 week fetuses. This is why I feel that 20-22 weeks is about right as a time limit beyond which abortion should only be permitted in rare cases.

            12 weeks is far too early. Many women don’t even realize they’re pregnant at 12 weeks. I can see no difference between aborting an embryo at 12 weeks and a fetus at 20. Neither can feel pain. Neither is conscious. Neither is capable of life outside the womb.

          • “If you are under 16 years of age, you can have an abortion without telling your parents, as long as two doctors believe it’s in your best interests and you fully understand what is involved.

            “However, the doctors will encourage you to involve your parents or another adult in your decision-making process. This increases the amount of support you have available. If you choose to have an abortion, you have the right for it to remain confidential, regardless of your age.”

            http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx

          • DanJ0

            I see you stole that off the Marie Stopes site pretty much word for word. Strictly speaking, the law provides an exception to what is normally illegal.

          • Martin

            Findarato

            Wow, that’s generous of you, limiting the age at which the baby can be killed.

          • Little Black Censored

            He wouldn’t really limit it; he thinks we have to accept the abortion laws as they are because neither he nor we have any part in deciding what they should be. Rather a defeatist view for a democrat.

          • Martin

            LBC

            Actually I’m not sure he is coming from that position.

          • Little Black Censored

            “But then I don’t make abortion laws. Neither do you. So we’ll just have to live with them as they are.”
            Where do you think our (very modern) abortion laws came from, then? If public opinion changes, so can the law.

          • Findaráto

            If you want a change in the law, then it’s up to you to change public opinion.

            On you go, then.

            Anyone reading this who may be contemplating an abortion need not panic … Christians have shown themselves to be just about as bad as it’s possible to be at public relations. They have no idea how to win friends and influence people, so there’s little danger of the public listening to them when they talk about abortion, any more than it listened to them when they talked about same-sex marriage, or anything else, come to that…

        • Anton

          Inert? The heart beats from week 4:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_development

          and you are well off the pace regarding the sensing of pain:

          http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/science2.html

          As it’s so much more complicated that the cerebral cortex, nobody can say with confidence that the foetus doesn’t feel pain. In any case, shooting somebody who is asleep means they don’t feel pain but that isn’t OK.

          • Findaráto

            Shooting someone who is asleep means killing an independent life. The sleeping person will wake up and be conscious. And even when sleeping, a form of consciousness is experienced.

            An early term abortion does not kill an independent life. It removes an embryo or an undeveloped and unconscious fetus that cannot survive outside the woman’s body in which it is located.

            Only Pro-Life supporters maintain that early term fetuses can feel pain. I don’t think they believe it, because research clearly shows that pain cannot be felt without a properly developed central nervous system and cerebral cortex.

            The suspicion of Pro-Life dishonesty is reinforced by the dubious nature of the “research” they quote, which is always strangely lacking in peer reviews and is never supported by any respectable medical or scientific body. In other words, Pro-Lifers start with the dogmatic conviction that early term fetuses feel pain and then set about trying to find proof, discarding anything that doesn’t agree with their predetermined theory along the way.

            And the result is pseudo-science clips like “The Silent Scream”, in which lies and half-truths are presented as fact, when really they’re just a cynical and highly manipulative ploy to coerce women into keeping children they don’t want.

            Typical Christian tactics. If you can’t get what you want by presenting solid evidence for it, lie.

          • Ivan M

            Hey Linus, don’t peddle your lies here. Since when is sensation of pain associated, only upon a fully developed cortex? (As Anton notes.) How do you know there is no pain?

          • Findaráto

            How do you know there is pain?

            There is a large body of research confirming the inability of an early term fetus to feel pain. Those who disagree with this have no convincing evidence to offer as support for their point of view, which seems to be motivated not by compassion, but rather by a dogmatically inflexible belief that abortion is wrong and must be stopped, even if it means fabricating or misrepresenting evidence in order to achieve that goal.

          • Ivan M

            Does an ant sense pain when you step on it? Of course it does. Its pain centres are distributed. There is no question of a cortex here. You may not feel for the ant. I certainly don’t. If you train a rat to push a button activating some recordings saying “I feel pain” or I feel a lot of pain, upon an electric shock it will be accepted that it feels pain. So the difficulty seems to be that the foetus is dumb. But that is a limitation of its state of development rather than the absence of pain.

          • Findaráto

            Human fetuses do not start out as mature insects processing pain in the way that a mature insect would process it. Human fetuses are undeveloped humans, not insects, and the physiological systems that will allow them to experience pain follow the human pattern, not the insect one. These systems are laid down over time and don’t start to process pain until development has reached a certain point.

            The evidence showing that early term abortion does not inflict pain on the fetus is extremely convincing. I’ll need a little more than “but ants feel pain when you step on them” to change my mind about this. When a woman terminates her pregnancy, doctors don’t remove an ant from her womb, after all…

          • Ivan M

            So a primitive entity such as an ant can integrate pain etc in a matter of days but a human foetus requires 20 weeks? Isn’t the sense of physical pain part of the instinctive life and hence doesn’t require so called higher integration. I know how these peer reviews are done. They suffer from confirmatory bias.

          • Findaráto

            “Isn’t the sense of physical pain part of the instinctive life…?”

            No. Pain is a sensation felt by creatures with a central nervous system and a brain capable of interpreting sensory impulses. No brain, no pain. Early term fetuses don’t have brains. They barely have the rudiments of brain stem. Their central nervous system is undeveloped and incapable of transmitting sensory information to a brain that, even if it was receiving input, would be incapable of interpreting it.

            Next you’ll be telling me that bacteria feel pain, so it’s immoral to brush my teeth. Imagine the millions of plaque bacteria that are crushed to death in unbearable agony every time I get my toothbrush out! Such a wantonly cruel slaughter makes abortion look like nothing in comparison…

          • Ivan M

            Don’t change the subject in your ridiculous ways, Linus. You know that the issue is whether the fetus feels pain. It does. That you are indifferent to it claiming that some artifact is missing, is your rationalisation. We are creatures of the middle view, we cannot comprehend things that are very small or very large, when things as tiny as ants die we do not feel anything.

          • Little Black Censored

            Linus is the perfect example of a reductionist.

          • Anton

            I simply pointed out the scientific inaccuracies in what you said, that the foetus was “inert” when it in fact had a beating heart; and that there is now known to be much more to the sensation of pain than the cerebral cortex. As for The Silent Scream, I’ll let it speak for itself.

          • Findaráto

            “The Silent Scream” speaks very loudly of one thing only: the lengths that religious zealots will go to in order to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

          • Anton

            That’s what it says to you. I’m happy to let it speak for itself.

        • Unless the pregnancy is wanted, that is. In this case, this ” inert sac of rudimentary organ systems with no consciousness” becomes a “baby” with an identity and a future.

          • Findaráto

            Not so. Somewhere between 30% to 50% of pregnancies, whether wanted or not, end in a miscarriage.

            If he exists, God is history’s greatest abortionist. He may knit us together in our mothers’ wombs, but apparently he’s pretty slapdash about it because anything up to half of his attempts are not viable.

            Makes you think … if God cares so little for embryos and fetuses that between a third and a half of them are trashed even when they’re wanted, why should we hesitate to terminate pregnancies when they’re not?

          • We’ve had this discussion already, Linus. Remember? Do you know the definition of “abortion” as opposed to “miscarriage”?
            We live in a fallen world and nature is not perfect as God intended. There is physical evil – illness, disease, disabilities. We suffer. Innocent children die naturally in the womb. Planes fall out of the sky. Buildings tumble over during earthquakes. God permits such evil.
            Think of it this way. It’s the difference between a terrorist deliberately blowing up a building and the building collapsing during a storm due to the force of nature.

          • Little Black Censored

            That is as much as to say, since everybody is going to die anyway, there is nothing wrong in killing people.

          • Findaráto

            People are alive. Early term fetuses are not, at least no more so than a cancerous growth. If you remove a cancerous growth from a body, it dies. It cannot live on its own. Neither can an early term fetus.

            Once a fetus is capable of independent life, I quite agree there should be restrictions placed on aborting it. Before that point however, it’s just a growth inside a woman’s body and it’s up to her to deal with it as she sees fit.

            Or do you want to outlaw cancer operations too? Are all self-replicating growths within a human body holy?

          • Little Black Censored

            Your comment is unanswerable – I will leave it at that.

      • IanCad

        I’ll decline Anton, but I’m on the Smyrna (no. 3) episode of Pawson’s series you recommended. Very well presented.

    • Lienus

      ‘Ow could you be so insensitive? You ‘ave changed since I told you I was pregenante with our stem-cell engineered offspring. You are sleeping on the chaise ce soir.

      • Rato believes all you are ‘carrying’ is an “inert sac of rudimentary organ systems with no consciousness.”

      • The Explorer

        Findarato’s being very coy towards you on line, isn’t he?

  • The Explorer

    When Linus was Linus, he said he admired the Scots. (In the process of saying how he hated the English.) It’s a terrible inditement.

  • My God are we that desperate for entertainment that we have to film and broadcast some poor sod taking his own life? And quite frankly I don’t wish to see babies being killed by abortion either. What’s all this obsession with death? There is enough of it around already.

    • DanJ0

      I doubt many people saw it as entertainment. The response to it of most people I have talked to online was a flood of tears while watching it. It was almost unbearable to watch yet I support its broadcast. As it happens, I’d support a documentary about abortion too if the making of it was done with dignity.

      • Dreadnaught

        I think the saddest part was the fact that his wife came across as selfish in the light of her husband’s terminal discomfort and expressed wishes that resulted in a failed attempt to hang himself. Why she didn’t assist him in washing and dressing preferring to engage a competent stranger I don’t understand.

        • For better or worse, in sickness and in health seems to have gone out of the window for people these days, it’s the selfish society we live in.

      • How can the clinical murder of children in their mother’s wombs be dignified?

        • DanJ0

          I was talking about abortion, not the murder of children.

          • Same thing from Jack’s perspective.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Abortion Is the murder of children. Our society bleats about child sexual abuse yet cares not for the babies that are murdered.

          • DanJ0

            I’m intelligent enough to identify your assumptions and filter out your emotive language. What’s left?

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            And I identify your assumptions and filter out your emotive language.

            Remember, it isn’t the woman’s body but it is a living human being.

            It is a baby because that is what we call human infants and when it is wanted the mother will speak of it as a baby.

            It is a child because a child is the result of the coupling of a male and female.

            What you do is pretend it isn’t human, it isn’t a baby or a child, simply because of the developmental stage at which it is at.

          • DanJ0

            “And I identify your assumptions and filter out your emotive language.”

            I didn’t make any assumptions and I haven’t used any emotive language. Do you actually have a normally functioning brain? Jeez

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Of course you made assumptions, we all do. You pretend that the child in the womb is not a human being, you deny that it is a child. That’s using emotive language.

            And you expect me to trust what you say?

          • DanJ0

            I described it as an abortion. Whether an abortion as an act is a subset of an act of murdering a child is debatable, and one proceeds with that debate by arguing over core premises. I held onto the word abortion because that is shared ground. I have not used emotive language at all. Feel free to quote my words in this sub-thread if you disagree. Otherwise, I’m happy just to dismiss you as a crank, and a thick one at that, because of the nonsense you’re writing.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            It’s a fact that it is a child, it is a fact that it is killing that child for no reason other than convenience. I used truth, not emotive language but you like to hide the truth so that child abuse can be ignored.

          • DanJ0

            Feel free to quote my words in this sub-thread if you disagree.

            Still no quotes to support your allegation of my using emotive language. You were lying again, weren’t you? You need to get on your hands and knees and repent.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            If baby is emotive language then abortion is too.

          • DanJ0

            Lol. You’re completely and utterly ridiculous. It’s embarrassing watching you struggle on with your nonsense.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            There’s nothing emotive about my statement, it is a statement of fact. If my statement is emotive, so is yours. Trouble is, you regard my use of ‘baby’ as emotive when it is accurate.

          • DanJ0

            I note you’ve stopped arguing that I’ve used emotive language now. Were my demands for you to provide a quote becoming too much even for someone like you to ignore?

            I can keep quoting your use of emotive language, as understood by normal people, all day if necessary:

            “Abortion Is the murder of children. Our society bleats about child sexual abuse yet cares not for the babies that are murdered.”

          • Martin

            DnJ0

            I’m saying that if my language is emotive then so is yours, I’ve even pointed to your emotive language.

            So it’s ’emotive language as understood by normal people’ now is it? Perhaps you don’t actually know what normal is. perhaps you’re nicely proving my point by displaying your bigotry.

          • DanJ0

            You’re a thick as a brick.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            What you are doing is avoiding the moral consequence. Abortion is not simply about a medical procedure, if it were, the only person entitled to make a decision would be the patient. However, abortion involves two people, one of whom never gets a say, their wishes are never considered. So, in other words, your position is entirely one sided, your reasoning entirely emotive.

          • DanJ0

            You can twist and turn like a twisty turny thing all you like but the fact remains that I wasn’t using emotive language as you claimed. You could retract the claim even now of course but I very much doubt you have the honesty or integrity to do that given how you normally behave.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            I don’t need to twist and turn. The fact that you speak of emotive language, and describe the word baby as being emotive gives your game away. Indeed, it is you that is ‘twisting and turning’.

          • DanJ0

            I swear you’re autistic.

            Here it is yet again:

            “Abortion Is the murder of children. Our society bleats about child sexual abuse yet cares not for the babies that are murdered.”

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            So where do I use emotive language? That is entirely factual.

          • DanJ0

            “Abortion Is the murder of children. Our society bleats about child sexual abuse yet cares not for the babies that are murdered.”

            http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/emotive_language.htm

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            No emotive language there, just a statement of facts.

          • DanJ0

            You’re like an obstinate child, denying what is in front of you. Crossing your arms and shaking your head won’t cut it here. You even have the link to help you if you’re as thick as you appear.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            The child in the womb has committed no crime, hence its execution is unjust and without doubt murder.

            I think your remarks would be better aimed at yourself.

          • DanJ0

            “The child in the womb has committed no crime, hence its execution is unjust and without doubt murder.”

            http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/emotive_language.htm

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            So show me where I haven’t stated facts.

      • I didn’t watch it, the title put me off. Nine o’clock in the evening is prime time entertainment time following on from the earlier news, topical programs and soaps. Much better to watch “One Born Every Minute” to shed tears of joy and marvel at the miracle of new life coming into the world.
        What was this program supposed to achieve apart from new sensational headlines? What would a docu. about abortion achieve? It wont change things other than to make some women feel guilty. On the other hand an expose’ on the practices of abortion clinics might change laws.

        • DanJ0

          I thought it was informative about the process, it got me thinking about what I would do in a similar situation, and it highlighted issues about the impact of the disease and the decision on the survivors. It certainly generated both empathy and sympathy on my part. I don’t think it was aimed at changing the law, though it would feed into a conversation about that.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Bear in mind that:

            And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, (Hebrews 9:27 [ESV])

            When you die you will stand before almighty God, as this man now has done, and face God’s judgement.

            And you will be found guilty.

          • IanCad

            It is not for us to say that Martin. We do not know the agony or torment he and his family went through. Let us pray we never shall.

          • Martin

            Ian

            I think it is important to remind all that most do not rest in peace. Death is not a merciful release from pain.

          • IanCad

            So, you’re saying that you believe in the Pagan and thoroughly unchristian superstition of an eternally burning Hell, where souls writhe in agony forever?
            The CofE rejected such an invention in 1995.

          • sarky

            He defo believes it, he’s even got my place booked

          • IanCad

            I’m working on him Sarky but it will take more than me. It’s a role for the Holy Spirit.

          • Ivan M

            Your exchange is clarifying. It seems only right that those who do not wish to spend eternity in heaven pass into non-existence.

          • sarky

            Either that or a lobotomy.

          • IanCad

            Patience, patience.

          • Martin

            Ian

            It is an entirely Christian position. And what the CoE believes today is fairly irrelevant to Christian doctrine.

            What do you think Jesus means in Matthew 25 when He says:

            And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
            (Matthew 25:46 [ESV])

            The word used, aionios, is the same for the wicked as the righteous. If the wicked do not receive eternal punishment neither do the righteous receive eternal life.

          • IanCad

            Martin, The words “Eternal” and “Forever” in their Biblical contexts, often mean “Until.” As Jonah in the whale “Forever” or the “Eternal” fires of Sodom and Gommorah.

          • Anton

            Can’t mean that in Rev 14:11.

          • IanCad

            A quick response Anton, and one that avoids delving too deeply into scripture, is that in order for a sinner to suffer eternally he would have to be granted immortality.
            “God alone hath immortality” It is only given to those judged fit to receive it.
            Further, it would be giving truth to Satan’s first and greatest lie: “Ye shall not surely die.” (Genesis 3:7)

          • Anton

            Remember that there is more than one kind of death, according to Jesus Christ himself. And Rev 14:11 refers to many who *never* knew Christ, as suffering endlessly.

          • IanCad

            Yes Anton; “it is given to man once to die and after that the Judgement” (Hebrews 9:27)
            Those deemed unfit for Heaven will experience the “Second Death” (Rev. 21:8}
            The redeemed will not die but be resurrected. (Rev. 2:11)
            It is impossible to, at the same time, be dead and to suffer.

          • Anton

            I agree with that, but are you saying that some will neither end in the lake of fire nor the New Jerusalem, and simply be annihilated?

          • IanCad

            Anton,
            Not really – those who don’t enter the New Jerusalem will be annihilated in the lake in fire. All will face the Judgement

          • Anton

            I take the experience of the lake of fire to be eternal for those who are cast into it, just as the New Jerusalem will be eternal for those who enter it. Rev 14:11 is pretty clear about that.

          • IanCad

            Yes, that is so, but as those in the Holy City will be alive to celebrate the wonder of God’s love for eternity; those others will be eternally dead.

          • Martin

            Ian

            So you’re saying that eternal life isn’t forever.

          • IanCad

            Martin,
            You must have speed read my post; the contingent adverb “often” was overlooked.

          • Martin

            Ian

            So are you saying that the same word used in the same context has a different meaning when used of the wicked from when used of the righteous? I’m trying to understand your point.

          • IanCad

            Not exactly Martin. Context is king. The Word of God is truth. It cannot however, be read in the darkness of extreme literalism. Language is dynamic and always has been I suppose. It sure makes us search the scriptures.

          • Martin

            Ian

            Trouble is, words mean something and the same word is used of eternal life as is used of eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46. The context is the same, the word is the same, therefore the word means the same.

          • Rhoda

            Which words do you understand to mean until ?
            The word used in Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 14:11 is αἰώνιος which means perpetual , eternal.

          • IanCad

            Rhoda,
            Neither word should be modified by “until” except when context or scriptural harmony requires. In Matthew we can’t – or at least I can’t – reconcile the prospect of a place of eternal torment with either the character of the altogether lovely Jesus or the consistency of the written word.
            Same in Revelation; although rather than considering the passage as one of time – or “until” – more regard should be made to the “effects” of perpetuity. That is – the Gospel messages of salvation and annihilation are fulfilled.

          • Rhoda

            Can you give me an example of where eternal or forever means until? Surely if the word for “until” isn’t in the original we shouldn’t modify the word (αἰώνιος) eternal however much we dislike the meaning of the verse.

          • preacher

            Hi Ian. The CofE has rejected many things in the last few decades, in an effort to ” modernise ” itself & improve it’s image to the contemporary public. Perhaps that’s why it’s numbers have decreased significantly, – ” Ichabod ” ?.
            I’m afraid that many of the ‘ New free Churches ‘ have set a precedent, under the umbrella of being post – ‘ Post Modernist Charismatics ‘ that appeals to the average spiritual consumer by editing out the challenging or unpopular parts of scripture & leaving a sad New Age counterfeit that will leave many sad distraught ‘ Believers ‘ on the day of judgement. When the Lord answers their request to enter heaven with the sad words ” Depart from me, I never new you ! “.
            Many leaders have followed suit & embraced these errors in an effort to fill their Churches & regrettably the results are obvious ! .

            Blessings Brother. P.

          • IanCad

            Couldn’t agree with you more Preacher.

          • True, we cannot know this man’s fate, but let’s not tip toe around the issue. To wilfully end one’s own life is an objective evil – a grave sin that kills grace in the soul and exposes one to the risk of damnation.

          • David

            Well put Happy Jack. Judgement is for God of course, not us, but let’s recognise serious sin when it presents before us.

          • DanJ0

            If it turns out to be Allah sitting there then we’re both in trouble, sweetheart, and you can no more say it isn’t Allah than I can say it isn’t the Christian one. It’s just a god hypothesis at the end of the day. So, make your own choice and feck off with your assertions.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            But I can say it isn’t Allah. And I can say that Allah bears no resemblance to the God of old or New Testament. Allah is a tyrant who might, if you work hard at it, grant you happiness in the after life. The God of the Bible saves the sinner from His sin entirely in mercy. Your little god tells you it’s all OK, you’re a good guy and you’re doing OK.

          • DanJ0

            “But I can say it isn’t Allah”

            And I can assert that it isn’t the Christian god. It gets you no further. You are presenting a god hypothesis by claiming to be a Christian. That’s fine. Make you own choice as you wish but feck off with your assertions regarding me. They’re shite.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            You can certainly say that, but you know that God exists. And you don’t have to use weakly disguised potty language.

          • DanJ0

            And so the broken record comes out again. You have nothing, Martin. Not even a demonstrable faith. Just a bleak, cold, vicious version of religion.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            You don’t like that vision of yourself do you. You must avoid it at all cost.

          • DanJ0

            It’s your personal vision of me, or at least it’s the one you profess to hold, which is not quite the same thing. It’s just nonsense to me. The ramblings of a weird religious nutter. There’s no evidence in what I write that indicates I know your god exists. Actually, there’s a substantial body of evidence here over the years that I most definitely don’t know it exists or even believe it exists. I can and have argued that it’s irrational for me to consciously live my life as I do if I know or even believe it exists. Does any of that matter to you at all? No. You’re not interested in evidence for anything that contradicts your religious sect’s claims. Black is white, up is down, and left is right if it suits you. This is why you deploy your broken record over and over and over and over and over and over again. It’s the only way you can maintain your weird religiosity in your head.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Well, you’re an irrational weirdo who worships himself despite knowing that God exists. Since it is in our nature that we know God exists, we all know God exists.

            It matters not what Christians think, what matters is what the Bible says:

            For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
            (Romans 1:18-23 [ESV])

            It’s quite funny really, you try to define what a Christian is and what they believe by your opinion. You bleat about evidence when it is staring you in the face.

          • DanJ0

            For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

            You’ve been so brainwashed by your weird religious sect, and so keen to use bits of the bible as a weapon for your own purposes, that you don’t understand it.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Oh dear, have I hit home. Never mind, you’ll get over it and carry on worshipping your own little god.

          • DanJ0

            Martin, whenever you have tied to run that argument other Christians here have challenged it. You’re interpreting it to suit yourself. You want it to mean what you say because you want to use it as a weapon. That’s all your religion is to you: a means to indulge your malice and to support your bigotry. Your brethren in the Westboro Baptist Church use it the same way. This is why you’re a pariah here.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Remember, you don’t know what a Christian is, and in any case, it is not the opinion of Christians that matters but what the Bible says.

            And so you use your favourite ad hom once more.

          • DanJ0

            Martin, the Bible is clearly open to interpretation. This is why Christianity is full of sects and splits. You want to interpret that a very particular way in order to use it as a weapon to pursue your malice and vice. You revel in your sin. As such, you’re clearly not even trying to be a Christian. In the very unlikely event that Christianity turns out to be true, I expect your behaviour is going to be considered far worse that mine. Afterall, you’re knowingly bringing Christianity into disrepute by pretending to be a Christian to pursue your evil. No wonder you’re a pariah here.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Curiously most have an agreement of what are the basic doctrines. Alongside those are the ones who have abandoned the Bible for reasons of power. Of those who hold the Bible to be the authority, there is little difference.

            And those who hold the Bible as the authority will tell you much the same as I do.

            You are a sinner, one who has no excuse because you know you have rejected God, your Creator. God offers you mercy and your only option is to accept that mercy.

          • DanJ0

            I’m an a-theist so by definition I have rejected all god hypotheses that I know about. I’m much like Muslims and Christians in that respect, only they’ve rejected all but one. A different one in each of those cases, of course.

            “And those who hold the Bible as the authority will tell you much the same as I do.”

            You’re unique here in that you use religion merely as a weapon to indulge your malice and spite. I have no doubt that you don’t experience Christianity. There’s no goodness in you that I can detect. You revel in your sins.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            There are no a-theists, nor Atheists, nor agnostics. What you are is this:

            The fool says in his heart, There is no God.
            They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
            there is none who does good.
            (Psalms 14:1 [ESV])

            You know God exists, but as a fool you deny that knowledge. It is foolish because God made you, gives you sustenance and provides everything you need. God maintains your life every moment of every day, if He were to remove His power you’d die.

            Now if I were to leave it there you’d have reason to complain, at least if you were to pay attention. Yet you also know that God has provided more than that, He’s provided forgiveness and offered it to you.

            What a fool you are for rejecting that offer.

          • DanJ0

            And so you repeat the loop yet again. It’s like you have autism or something. It’s quite funny at some level, but also a little pitiful too

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            When it comes to pitiful, I’m not the one refusing God’s offer of mercy.

          • DanJ0

            In Calvinist terms, you’re clearly not one of the elect so you perhaps you haven’t had the chance.

          • Unless it was balanced by an alternative perspective which explained treatment options for this disease at the end of life, it was no more than soft propaganda for euthanasia. And to show a man actually ending his life is nothing short of pornographic.

          • DanJ0

            Pornographic? You’re a strange one, and no mistake.

          • Anton

            Well said Jack. That is the phrase I realise I’ve been searching for.

          • A bit of free advertising for Dignitas more like.
            You watched it through the eyes of a healthy man, you don’t really know now what you would actually do if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future Danj0, none of us do until we are in that position.

          • DanJ0

            That’s one of the points of watching it: to mentally put oneself in that position. Fo’sure, we might actually choose different if the hypothetical becomes reality but I think it’s better to consider it than bury one’s head in the sand. Personally, I think I would make the same choice myself. That puts me in a dilemma because I want that choice available for me but I think changing the law to allow it here is too dangerous in practice.

      • Martin

        DanJ0

        And what of the copycat suicides? What of the rules that say broadcasting a suicide should not be done?

        Frankly I think that you are being disingenuous when you say “I’d support a documentary about abortion too if the making of it was done with dignity” because I don’t think you’d want the desperate attempts of the baby to live to be revealed. Actually it would be more true to say that I think you’re a liar.

        • DanJ0

          Martin, on every thread where you interact with me, you imagine something different to what I say. I have been here for years, and I have been consistent throughout. When you don’t like the truth you simply pretend it away. It’s time you transitioned to being an adult.

          • IanCad

            I will grant you that DanJ0 – you have been consistent and fair throughout – whether or not you are on the right side of an issue.
            BTW Where’s the Inspector? He’s not often on leave. Hope he hasn’t been slapped with an ASBO, or is unwell.

          • CliveM

            I suspect he has suffered a cyber attack by his friends on pink news!

          • Ivan M

            Why can’t he get a different account? What wot? He’s not an easy act to imitate.

          • IanCad

            “He’s not an easy act to imitate.”
            You have that right. Quite unique.

          • Ivan M

            Another regular the Canadian rigger, Brother Avi has also gone quite.

          • sarky

            Think he got a job on ice Road truckers.

          • IanCad

            He’ll be back – I seem to recall him saying that he was too busy to be on every day – or something along those lines.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Oh yes, you’ve been consistent, you’ve claimed you’d support this or that when this or that are not likely to happen. It’s an easy position to take, but somehow I don’t see the evidence that you would take such a position.

          • DanJ0

            “I don’t see the evidence that you would take such a position”

            How will you see the evidence and of what do you think it will comprise?

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Oh how wonderfully you do the affronted good guy act. The evidence is in your posts, the picture I’ve built up over time of the sort of person you are. If you don’t like that picture, don’t blame me, blame yourself and what you have posted.

          • DanJ0

            I note that you’ve ignored the bulk of my comment there. Now, why would that be? Because the argument there with its references to previous comments I have made completely undermine what you said so you’ve just pretended it away. Again. You’re a pathetic excuse for a man. And a terrible Christian.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            So why wouldn’t I ignore your self-justification, you ignore my points all the time.

          • DanJ0

            I’m pleased to see you openly admit you’re ignoring the counter-argument to the stuff you assert. What else can you do if you are not interested in the truth but merely to assert your position over and over? You’re a hopeless bigot.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            You don’t have any counter arguments, all you have is self-justification which doesn’t wash. You’re not interested in the truth, just in your belief that you are the only god that matters.

          • DanJ0

            Here it is again:

            Take my comment regarding a documentary about abortion. What have I got to lose? If someone chooses not to abort then how does that affect me? My repeatedly stated position is that a foetus has moral value and aborting it is a serious moral act which increases in severity at points throughout the pregnancy. I’d prefer no elective abortions to take place. However, I wouldn’t remove the current legal exceptions. So, you say you think I’m a liar saying I’d support a documentary about it. On what basis do you make that claim? Justify yourself.

            Do you have anything to say that undermines it in any way?

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Have you noticed how you use ‘foetus’ and ‘moral’ to put a gloss on it? For you it isn’t a baby, a human being but a foetus and it isn’t killing the innocent, it’s a moral act.

          • DanJ0

            I note you’re still not addressing the questions or the argument there. That’s because it’s an inconvenient truth so, as ever, you just try to pretend it away.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            I’ve addressed them, trouble is you don’t like being contradicted.

          • DanJ0

            “I’ve addressed them, trouble is you don’t like being contradicted.”

            Very clearly not. Here’s one of them:

            So, you say you think I’m a liar saying I’d support a documentary about it. On what basis do you make that claim? Justify yourself.

            Your answer is?

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            You said:

            “I’d support a documentary about abortion too if the making of it was done with dignity”

            and my response was:

            “I don’t think you’d want the desperate attempts of the baby to live to be revealed”

            and my basis for that is what you post. You present yourself as a reasonable person, yet you insert that word ‘dignity’ when speaking of the murder of a child. That little word is sufficient for me to question your claim that you would support a honest documentary.

          • DanJ0

            “You present yourself as a reasonable person, yet you insert that word ‘dignity’ when speaking of the murder of a child.”

            I am a reasonable person. I demonstrate it regularly in my posts here, as the normal Christians here recognise.

            “That little word is sufficient for me to question your claim that you would support a honest documentary.”

            Lol. Is that the best you can do? Martin, the programme should respect the people involved, and not be gratuitous or unnecessarily intrusive. If it’s appropriate in context to show (say) a D&C or D&E procedure and the resulting tissue then I’m okay with that. I’m more than happy for the statistics to be highlighted, and for examples of third trimester abortions to be discussed. The possible impact of abortion on the mental health of women should also be highlighted.

            As I’ve already said, your claim doesn’t make sense (like just about all of your claims about pretty much anything) because of this:

            My repeatedly stated position is that a foetus has moral value and aborting it is a serious moral act which increases in severity at points throughout the pregnancy. I’d prefer no elective abortions to take place. However, I wouldn’t remove the current legal exceptions.

            I want both men and women to be fully informed about what they are doing if they elect to have a pregnancy terminated. Why wouldn’t I? It’s a serious moral act, as I’ve already said. But of course that’s an inconvenient truth to you so you simply pretend it away as usual.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            So what dignity is accorded to the child when you speak of it as a foetus? Is there any respect shown to the child in an abortion, is it asked for its opinion? Is the impact on the child of the abortion part of your consideration? Do the statistics help the baby?

            What is the moral value of a child, and how does the morality of an abortion rate alongside the morality of child abuse? Does child abuse change according to how old the child is? And how do you feel about the death penalty, is that a moral act?

            Where is your vaunted reasonableness when addressing the truth?

          • DanJ0

            How does any of that undermine my statement that I’d support a documentary about abortion, which could include the sort of stuff I’ve listed as an example?

            I’ll ram this back down you throat yet again:

            I want both men and women to be fully informed about what they are doing if they elect to have a pregnancy terminated. Why wouldn’t I? It’s a serious moral act, as I’ve already said.

            and this:

            Take my comment regarding a documentary about abortion. What have I got to lose? If someone chooses not to abort then how does that affect me?

            and this:

            I’d prefer no elective abortions to take place.

            But of course all that’s an inconvenient truth to you so you simply pretend it away as usual.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            And those statements support my opinion of you.

          • DanJ0

            Martin, are you actually autistic or something? You must be surely.

      • Ivan M

        What kind of people watch stuff like this? It is not as though they are on a watch to wait on their dying loved ones. It may well be the case your friends were in tears, but after a certain number X, where X varies from person to person, they will be inured to it. It is known as Pavlovian conditioning, and no one can escape its baneful effects. Do you recall the first time you saw a beheading video or at least saw a still? What was your reaction then, and what is your reaction now? The taboo system is there for a reason.

        • DanJ0

          “What kind of people watch stuff like this?”

          People like the blog owner, apparently.

          • Ivan M

            He has to report from the circles of hell so as to warn us. That’s part of his job description.

        • sarky

          Unfortunately it is part of my job to watch such videos, and I can honestly say it is something you never get used to.

          • Ivan M

            If it is part of your description then I suppose you have to steel yourself.

        • DanJ0

          How many beheading videos do you think I watch? More to the point, how many do you watch to claim to know that?

          • Ivan M

            It was meant as an example. Replace it with anything that has a disgust or horror factor for you. Nothing personal.

  • chiefofsinners

    Jeremy Hunt seems hell-bent on euthanising the NHS. Soon we’ll all have to go abroad to get any kind of medical treatment.

    • To be quite blunt
      Mr Jeremy Hunt
      ………………………….
      ………………………………

      • Anton

        If you mean what I think, James Naughtie said it first, and on air (google for it).

        There is a good problem and a bad problem with the NHS. The good problem is that medical advances now mean a lot more can be done than a generation ago. This costs a lot and there is a genuine debate to be had about how to pay for it. (Treatments which obviously should not be done on moral grounds, such as infertility treatment for unmarried couples, are a side issue to the main debate, as they don’t cost much in percentage terms.) The bad problem is an administrator-to-(doctor+nurse) ratio that is FOUR times higher than in private hospitals. At least that was the case in the late 1990s in the large Trust in which consultant surgeon Maurice Slevin worked, when he made a survey – and who believes it improved under the next ten years of Labour? The only solution to that is to give 2/3 of NHS administrators a year’s notice.

  • carl jacobs

    Allowing a man to kill himself over a medical condition normalizes the idea that Iife with that medical condition is not worth living. It therefore devalues those who would make the contrary choice – a contrary choice that could easily come to be seen as both irrational and selfish. The impact of a decision for death can never be hermetically sealed away.

  • David

    The BBC is an out of control organisation that now exists only for its own benefit and to propagate is twisted, partial world view. By daily ignoring its crucial charter requirement of impartiality it demonstrates a deep corruption, in the sense of moral corruption. For some years now I have avoided watching it, as it is impossible to regard it as anything other than a self-appointed source of propaganda for its own belief system. This screening of a man’s suicide, for the purposes of brainwashing the public into accepting the expanding cult of death takes us to new depths of depravity.

    • Dreadnaught

      If you haven’t watched it for years its odd that you should still be so paranoid you make it sound like your talking about something in North Korea. BBC radio and the World Service is still a paragon of broadcasting. in my opinion.

      • CliveM

        Agreed. It still does intelligent programmes. It may have problems, but I still believe we are better off with it.

        • James60498 .

          I absolutely don’t. I believe that they spend as much time working out how to not looked biased as they do in actually being so.

          A genuine question for you then.

          When does the BBC show scientists who are Christians?

          • sarky

            I guess they would have to do something worthwhile and even then their faith would probably be irrelevant. Or it could be that they are as rare as rocking horse s##t.

          • James60498 .

            There are a number of regular scientists on the BBC who don’t appear to have done anything major, except fit in with the BBC’s way of doing things.

            However, in response to your second bit, there are others on here who can, and I am sure will answer this better than I can. However, a few names to be going on with

            http://www.johnlennox.org/about/
            http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/page13.html
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

            And one from America

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

          • IanCad

            And another one: Prof. John Walton (St. Andrews)

          • Anton

            A full 40% of scientists believe in a personal God according to a survey in the scientific journal Nature, 3rd April 1997, vol.386, p.435.

          • Dreadnaught

            Why Christians only? Einstein was Jewish and so was Bronowski and as is Robert Winston; on because of their science not their religion. Have you a particular Christian scientist in mind who has been denied a platform by the BBC?

            Its your own bias that you are exhibiting.

          • James60498 .

            Not seen a lot of the first two on TV recently. They are ok though to the BBC as they are dead, and following the BBC worldview wouldn’t still be religious if they were around now.

        • Dreadnaught

          Yes Clive to throw the baby out with the bathwater would be a very big mistake. You can change the Trustees you can change the editors but Rieth’s words will remain. Inform Educate Entertain. The World listens to the BBC especially the radio – that has to be justification enough to maintain the licence fee. Everything else can be amended or revised without interference from some media mogul to be cosseted.

      • David

        “a paragon of broadcasting”
        They are clearly achieving some success then in influencing your views.

        I exaggerated, as I do occasionally attempt to watch travel or similar programs, as the advertised titles are often of interesting subjects. But I am invariably disappointed by its unfailingly narrow liberal-left, metropolitan viewpoint.

        But it is the news and current affairs programs that are truly biased to the point of being risible. If you only watch the UK TV and read mainstream newspapers, then you really have little idea of what is happening in the world. Enormous events are often totally ignored by the BBC if they don’t promote their views. But until you research the news, by comparing BBC’s offerings to a wide range of sources, you really would not know. I am fortunate in that I have the time, resources and interest to read far wider.

        • Dreadnaught

          Not just my views – they wanted to abandon the WS until there was a major backlash in this country and others where State Radio equals propaganda Radio Rwanda or RTV.

          • David

            I was aware of the fracas attending the proposed axing of the WS.
            Have you been to Rwanda ? The campaign to retain the WS for Rwanda and similar places just shows just how bad things can get in some corners of the world.
            Indeed there we have an interesting comparison between two broadcasters, one very biased and selective, and the other even less subtle in its spin, and far deeper into “thought control”.
            To be impressed by the first you must low standards regarding both truth and journalistic balance.

      • IanCad

        I’ve said it before – I’ll say it again. The BBC is a national treasure. Like hot water; you’ll only miss it when it’s not there.

        • Anton

          It WAS a national treasure. The good bits will still be making good programmes for other channels and companies if the organisation is axed, and the PC brigade will have to seek meaningful occupation.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            ODI ET AMO (I hate and I love) wrote Catullus, probably lamenting the fact that his mistress Lesbia was unfaithful to him as well as her husband.

            I feel similarly about “Auntie” (I regularly watch BBC and ITV in roughly equal measure): she is supposed to be the British Broadcasting Corporation, but she seems to show more ready affection for outsiders, even enemies, than for her own family.

            But more than this, even when she is proclaiming something I agree with, I find her attitude insufferable.

          • Dreadnaught

            Then while we have it and own it, we should get move involved to maintain it and that includes crticising it.

          • IanCad

            Yes! And on that note Sabbath blessings to all.

        • Dreadnaught

          The BBC gave us years and years of the insightful and entering David Attenborough among many others whose natural history revelations are without parallel.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I asked a friend from a Country Near Arabia, but who has lived here since roughly 2000, if he thought that Britain is becoming a more controlled society.

        His forceful reply was that Britain is worse than North Korea. He is particularly incensed about all the intimate information they now enquire into on forms.

        If you think that the BBC is not behaving like a propaganda machine, then I would guess that either their world view closely matches yours, or you are not sensitive to that part of the spectrum.

        • Dreadnaught

          Your friend’s an idiot.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            He is certainly no idiot, in fact he is an intelligent and civilzed man.

            His mode of expression was, to say the least, more than hyperbolic. But in many other countries they have more freedom, within certain social bounds, to be themselves without constant scrutiny and criticism of every nucance of behaviour.

          • carl jacobs

            His forceful reply was that Britain is worse than North Korea.

            That assertion isn’t just hyperbolic. It’s idiotic. There is no moral sense under which that statement comes within a parsec of truth.

          • Ivan M

            Your friend should have said worse than Singapore where I live. Then it would be correct. I never imagined when I was younger, that the day would come when there is more actual freedom in Singapore than in the UK. For example the cake bakers would never have been driven out of business in Singapore. The authoritarian merely wants to control behaviour for some administrative end, he has no desire to inquire into the minds of the citizens. The totalitarian, wants you in addition to acknowledge that that the action forced on you is right and just. He wants to determine your inner state of mind, as foreseen long ago by such savants as deTocqueville and Orwell. This is of course the point that your friend was making.

          • carl jacobs

            You actually think the UK is totalitarian? Does the UK put you and three generations of your relatives into a labor camp if you violate some aspect of political reliability? You know, like for owning a bible? Or does the UK put up fences and consider it a crime if you try to leave the country? Such that if you try, you will be shot? Must you call David Cameron “Great Leader”?

            Calling the UK totalitarian simply insults those who really do live under such a regime.

          • Ivan M

            It is a soft totalitarian state. I refer to thought control which is the point being made. The present UK would not surprise Orwell since he foresaw all this with clarity. Aldous Huxley would add, that sex, meaning sophorific pleasure, is the most effective way to gain control. No need for the Gulag, when the mind is already enslaved.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Calling the UK totalitarian simply insults those who really do live under such a regime.

            Thank you for this bit of perspective. Something to bear in mind if this sort of topic arises again.

        • Uncle Brian

          “Worse than North Korea”? What stupid juvenile crap.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I don’t agree — quantitatively at least — with his assessment.

            However, I don’t agree with your criticism. Rather, I would say that much of what our media put out is ‘juvenile crap’, The BBC at least ought to know better.

            And there is always the danger of seeing our own faults in other people.

  • The Explorer

    The Inspector’s gone quiet. I would have expected him to weigh in on a topic such as this.. Either he’s ill, on holiday, been immobilised by a computer virus, or Lienus must be still holding him hostage if he hasn’t disposed of him.

    • sarky

      My money is on that he’s been arrested under the malicious communications act.

      • Ivan M

        You seem to be in a position to know. I hear that mi5 or mi6 is the gay-friendliest UK employer. Which explains a lot of things such as the constant Putin bashing coming out of the UK.

        • sarky

          Random.

          • Ivan M

            Random thoughts cause pain – Spinoza

          • IanCad

            Excuse the jump-in but this is suspicious. I tried it.
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35523880

          • Ivan M

            Google is the enemy.

          • IanCad

            If the Conservatives and Google have cooked this one up then the FTC and the CMA better get busy. Could be grounds for breaking Google up.

        • Dreadnaught

          You mean RasPutin of course; the ace beguiler of power

          • Ivan M

            Sure, he only appears as a colossus when compared to the current crop of Western leaders. Someone from Richard Nixon’s era would have taken him in stride. Someone like the elder George Bush.

          • Anton

            Russia’s greatest love machine…

    • IanCad

      No need Explorer. The blog is so active nowadays that is unrealistic to expect all comments will be read – or that first dibs grants ownership.

  • preacher

    It’s sad when death is displayed in our living rooms under the pretext of educating the masses. Suicide is not entertainment. If a person chooses to end their life in this manner, that is their choice, however they choose to accomplish it.
    What next to slake the thirst of the goulish & morbid viewers ?. It’s simple, you take poison – you die !.

  • The Explorer

    I confess to being confused about assisted suicide. I take Carl’s point below about devaluing life, but I don’t see assisted suicide as comparable with abortion. Abortion denies unknown potential the chance of existence; whereas with terminal illness the future, and the quality of life, is known.

    A closer equivalent to abortion would be the sort of euthanasia petitioned for in the Netherlands: not because of terminal illness, but for being over 65 and tired of life. Even the Dutch authorities balked at that, and refused the petition.

    We may say a doctor who assists suicide (as in Falconer’s bill), is thwarting the will of God. It is up to God to decide when we die. But is it possible for a murderer to thwart the will of God by killing someone, or was it God’s will for the victim to be killed at that point in time? How about a surgeon who saves life: isn’t he/she thwarting the will of God by preventing a death?

    • carl jacobs

      Suicide, abortion, and euthanasia all reflect the governing principle that the value of life is principally measured in terms happiness and comfort. In the absence of happiness and comfort, life becomes not worth living when examined according to such a standard. The Self is made the measure of all things.

      Is there purpose in suffering or not? Is there purpose in sacrifice or not? It’s hard to find purpose in suffering or sacrifice if one is locked within the confines of the material universe and adopts a belief system that presupposes we live and then die and then are no more. One must look beyond the Self to find it. Suicide, abortion, and euthanasia all deny this truth. It isn’t about who dies. It’s about why men live.

    • preacher

      Hi Explorer. Although the debate have moved from the original posting to include abortion & other topics, I feel we should first review whether the B.B.C were right to show this documentary. Does it devalue life ? If so what could be the eventual outcome ?.
      From the moment we are born, the eventual outcome is that we will die, then what ? different schools of thought have conflicting views. But I believe that many or maybe most people have a curiosity about the subject & wonder what if anything comes next. The screening of this programme is I believe, at best in poor taste, or even potentially harmful. It portrays death as the end of existence. Which is in direct contravention of Biblical teaching & the teaching of many other beliefs, as it expresses an opinion that is currently in vogue, but this does not make it right.

      The portrayal of a quiet & peaceful slipping into sleep could encourage some people who are in a state of depression or suffering from mental illness or who believe without reason that they are terminally ill to emulate Simon Binner.
      What if their condition are temporary, treatable, imaginary or a product of mental illness ?. Showing this could increase a morbid, defeatist mindset & drive them to self destruction. Leaving loved ones & families mourning, bereft & maybe even feeling guilt where none is existent.
      Dying is a private affair & whatever ones view on the afterlife, either for or against, the individual in question should be treated with respect. Not as part of a media circus to promote one point of view or to satisfy the morbid & curious viewers of a T.V channel.

      • Dreadnaught

        Spoken like a true believer in the interventionist Nanny State.

    • Surely the following principles are morally binding:

      “First, to make an attempt on the life of or to kill an innocent person is an evil action.

      Second, each person is bound to lead his life in accord with God’s plan and with an openness to His will, looking to life’s fulfillment in heaven.

      Finally, intentionally committing suicide is a murder of oneself and considered a rejection of God’s plan.”

      • Anton

        Murder means against somebody’s will and suicide is therefore not murder.

        There are plenty of good reasons not to commit suicide, but calling it murder is not one of them.

        • It is self murder. Would you want to call it “voluntary death”? Life is a sacred gift entrusted to us. It’s not for us to return it. Suicide is improper killing of oneself and a usurping God’s of authority.

          We’ve already had this discussion. It’s semantic, not substantial.

          • Anton

            The law distinguishes and so should we. It is self killing, not self murder of which there is no such thing. Using emotive phrases improperly actually weakens the good arguments against it.

          • Please, why be politically correct about this?
            What is “murder”? It is the premeditated and deliberate taking of life without proper authority. What is “suicide”? The intentional killing of oneself. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), dealing with the unlawful homicide of another human being, also forbids the murder of self.

          • Anton

            If you want a united front against the secularists on any thread, it is better – and possible – not to say things with which you know that other Christian contributors here disagree. I would always vote against assisted suicide because almost anybody who wants to commit suicide is capable of doing so; the tiny fraction who can’t are a minority of a minority and that invariably makes for bad law.

            Mosaic Law is comprehensive and there is nothing in it about sanctions to be taken against failed suicide attemptors or families of suicides. I dispute, ardently, that the one of the Ten Commandments against murder applies to suicide.

            How would you deal with failed suicides?

            (NB I have never attempted suicide.)

          • “I dispute, ardently, that the one of the Ten Commandments against murder applies to suicide.”

            The commandment is against unlawful killing. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

            How would Jack deal with failed suicide? That depends on the circumstances. Most times, probably as an indication of emotional or psychological disturbance. For those making an apparently rational decision, e.g. in the case of a terminal illness? What can one actually do?

          • Anton

            Well, if you consider that it is a failed murder attempt, you could try the poor guy for attempted murder. Where that carries the death penalty, the result might make you both happy.

            You say the relevant one of the Ten Commandments is against unlawful killing but “unlawful” in this context means against Mosaic Law, and that is what we are discussing. So your argument is circular.

          • The Commandment against killing, like all the Ten Commandments, stands regardless of the Mosaic Law.

          • Anton

            Yes of course; Jesus repeated it to his followers. But he meant it to mean what it means in Mosaic Law and, as I said, I dispute that the one of the Ten Commandments against murder applies to suicide.

          • Jesus actually extended its use beyond that understood in Mosaic Law as He did all the Ten Commandments.

            Jack stands with the CCC on this:

            “Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honour and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”
            (CCC 2280)

            What would you call taking a life you have no right to take?

          • Anton

            I’ll stick with the scriptures, thank you.

          • What would you call taking a life you have no right to take?

          • Anton

            I have no right to take another’s life. That I have no right to take my own life is not something I can infer from Mosaic Law, given that I dispute that the relevant Commandment applies to suicide.

          • “That I have no right to take my own life is not something I can infer from Mosaic Law … “

            Only because you have too narrow a view of the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments. These predate and transcend the Mosaic Law. The whole rationale for prohibiting the killing of innocent life is that human life belongs to God and is not ours to take.

          • Anton

            That is merely your interpretation of the Decalogue…

          • There’s another?

          • Anton

            There’s yours. And there’s mine.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            If you want a united front against the secularists

            United or not, they’ll have their fun anyway.

            “O father Abraham, what these anti-Christians are,
            Whose own hard feelings teaches them suspect
            The thoughts of others!…”

            (Shylock, updated.)

      • The Explorer

        As I said, I’m confused. Suppose it is God’s will that I die of illness in 2018. Would it be possible for a mugger, say, to kill me in 2016? Or for a surgeon to save me so that I live until 2020?

        Can God’s will be thwarted, short term, by human action, or does everything that happens happen according to the divine plan? ?

        • Can God’s will be thwarted? You’ve answered the question yourself.

          • cacheton

            I don’t get what you mean.

          • Nothing happens apart from God’s will “active” or “permissive”. He encompasses within His Providence so many apparently bad and even cruel things. But our perspective is inescapably limited, and we cannot fully understand how God’s Providence works.

          • cacheton

            Perfect for those who want to abdicate responsibility, who do not know, and who do not want to know, how things happen because ‘we cannot fully understand’….

          • And you know and fully understand, do you?

          • cacheton

            That’s not the point.
            The point is that inventing a whole theology about reality and then admitting you do not understand reality it is an abdication of responsibility. And, I suppose, an admission that your theology is largely wrong or at least incomplete, though (unsurprisingly) the theology itself contains excuses for that – ‘you are not god, so you will not understand’….

          • Our scripture, God’s self revelation, actually asks:

            “Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?”
            (Job 11:7)

          • cacheton

            The relevance of this?

          • God’s self revelation actually informs us that man, unaided, cannot fathom God or His plans.

          • cacheton

            Of course it does. Like I said.
            How convenient. Abdication of responsibility thus becomes part of being a christian.

        • cacheton

          Is it your belief that illness is the result of the will of god?

          Really?

          I was at a funeral the other day, we were expected to say at one point ‘…God who heals all sickness….’, when the body in the coffin was that of a man who everybody knew died from cancer ….

          • The Explorer

            “Is it your belief that illness is the result of the will of god?”
            That isn’t what I said. After all, we’re all going to die physically at some stage, by some means or other. Change it to ‘from a tree falling on me’ if you prefer.

          • cacheton

            You wrote : Suppose it is God’s will that I die of illness in 2018.

            So you think that the death would be god’s will, but the illness wouldn’t? I’m confused.

          • The Explorer

            You are indeed.

          • cacheton

            Five posts up you admit to being confused. Apparently about which events that happen ARE god’s will and which aren’t. My question was basically asking on what basis you decide whether an event is god’s will or not. Clarity is the word…..

    • cacheton

      ‘whereas with terminal illness the future, and the quality of life, is known.’

      I disagree. Change is always possible, if only in the mind. Nobody can know what realisations may come on the point of death, or before, regardless of the physical condition of the person who is dying; not even the person who is dying can know that.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I see that I have received a certain amount of opprobium over a comment on a comment which compared the BBC with North Korea. I feel the need to clarify the situation a bit. I will attempt this with a quotation from Sidelights on New London and Newer York by G.K.Chesterton http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Sidelights_All.html#a1 .

    WHAT embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but absence of self-criticism. . . Thus the Irishman would never have minded the English saying he was mad; or even that he was murderous and slanderous and cruel. There was something to be said for the assertion; and Irishmen were often ready, if not to admit it about themselves, at least to admit it about each other. The trouble began when the Englishman advanced the obviously ludicrous proposition that he himself was sane; that he was practical and sensible and well-balanced. No wonder a whole nation went wild at so fantastic a fancy as that.

    I do not myself find this attitude among the English at large, but over the years I have found it prevalent among the intelligentsia. And it seems to be particularly intense among BBC people.

  • DanJ0

    Did anyone here actually watch the documentary, other than the blog owner?

    • sarky

      I seriously doubt it.

      • DanJ0

        Seeing it variously described as entertainment, a snuff movie, and nothing short of pornography, I’m inclined to agree. [Addendum: ghoulish voyeurism too]

        I saw the documentary Terry Pratchett made called Choosing To Die, I think, which showed someone drinking something that would kill them at a clinic.

        Again, the process was shown leading up to the point of death but not the moments around it.

        • “The response to it of most people I have talked to online was a flood of tears while watching it. It was almost unbearable to watch …”

          You certainly make it sound like some form of sick entertainment.

          • DanJ0

            You’re bringing all of that yourself.

          • If it caused the reaction you say it was obviously not intended to be a dispassionate examination of the issues looking at them from all sides. It was an intrusion on the death of another person for *entertainment*. Ghoulish voyeurism, as Carl observed.

          • DanJ0

            It certainly wasn’t dispassionate. How on earth could it be given the narrative? I take it you haven’t watched it? It’s very interesting watching how people like you are framing it.

          • Jack wouldn’t watch it on principle.

          • Anton

            Agreed; neither would I. And I did once watch a Muslim ritual slaughter of an animal on YouTube, in order to educate myself on what animal sacrifice looked like in the Temple.

          • DanJ0

            I watched one live in Morocco, and I was a vegetarian at the time. It wasn’t what I expected. The rest of the trek group and the pony handlers ate it that night. I don’t suppose it suits some here that I wasn’t wanking myself off in voyeuristic pleasure afterwards. I simply wanted to know for the sake of knowledge and experience so I could talk authoritatively about religious animal slaughter.

          • DanJ0

            You think it was nothing short of pornography, despite not watching it. It’s a curious thing. I recommend steeling yourself to watch it, then reporting back on what you found.

          • It’s not a question of “steeling” oneself. Jack has witnessed a number of deaths so knows what’s involved. The suicide of a stranger, aired on TV for entertainment, is perverted and, by its very nature, diminishes the observer.

          • DanJ0

            Again, you’re bringing all that yourself. If something about this is fascinating, and a little ghoulish, it’s watching people like you framing it like this.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes a good principle – stick your head up your own bum in case it would have shaken the rickety foundations of your sense of superiority. Live and Let die.

          • Dreadnaught

            That is all in your own mind you sicko.

          • Let’s stay civil.

        • Dreadnaught

          I saw it. The man deteriorated from being fully fit to requiring help to dress and losing the ability to speak in less than twelve months. Of course those here with minds warped by their own superior understanding of the mind of their god who believe we are on this Earth to suffer, won’t even credit him the right to an end of life at a time of his choosing. As it happened, the disease, distress discomfort even robbed him of that.
          No doubt DoDo and Co will take that as a little crumb of comfort in seeing as how it didn’t all go completely to his desired plan.

    • carl jacobs

      There is something to be said for refusing on principle to watch a man die. There is a ghoulish voyeuristic quality to the experience that men should avoid.

      • Anton

        Yes, exactly so. Jack called it pornography and although the etymology of that word is specifically sexual he successfully conveyed the strength of the extent to which it is exploitative of the viewer.

        • Dreadnaught

          The man gave his permission as an example to others who may wish to follow and at the same time give two fingers to those who would take away his and their innate freedom.
          Only those uncomfortable with the truth would debase this man’s record of his death as pornographic, preferring as they do, to hide behind their dubious book of contradictions.

          • Anton

            Contradictions such as…?

          • Dreadnaught

            Another thread – another time: perhaps.

          • Ivan M

            So he had it filmed and broadcasted. That is the pornography part. I can have sex with ten women behind closed doors if I can afford it, but if it is aired, it is pornography. Decent people would not watch it, and not just because I am ugly.

          • DanJ0

            Is that really what you think? That the dying man had the lead up to his death filmed and broadcast as some sort of pornographic act? I should be astonished but I find I’m not now.

          • Ivan M

            What is there to be astounded about? He may claim XYZ reasons, but he fed the ghoulish voyuerism of the public, as noted by Carl and HJ. It is pornographic almost by definition and works to normalise this in the future.

          • DanJ0

            I find I’m disinclined to answer. I’m beginning to regret making the point at the top of this thread now. I’m not sure I wanted to see the revelations that followed.

          • Dreadnaught

            It’s certainly taught me a thing or two about how you can be mislead – and wrong.

          • DanJ0

            The characterisations and expectations and interpretations of it by the people who didn’t watch it are all so profoundly incorrect that it’s both depressing and indicative.

          • Dreadnaught

            I think it disturbs them because it challenges the strength of certainty they find in quoting biblical text to underpin opinion and argument against the reality of other peoples lives; lived without being in thrall of the supernatural or the organised herd mentality linked to it.

          • magnolia

            It’s the victory of hopelessness and despair that actually bothers me.

            In thrall to the supernatural? No! It is the Spirit that sets us free – potentially- from the hopelessness and despair that life without God engenders.

            I don’t want to see the glories of a once Christian civilisation sink back into this kind of tearful misery, a bit like the worldview of Oedipus plays.

            Giving a two finger salute to death? I cannot see it that way. It would have been a futile two second pyrrhic victory at best on that understanding.

            The one who did beat Death is Jesus Christ; only through Him do we get to join in that victory.

          • Dreadnaught

            hopelessness and despair…

            This scenario was posited on the individual by the chance event of the illness that consumed him. It was not mentioned whether he shared your faith and there is no justification for those that do, to impose their ‘rules’ on people like him … and others for that matter.

          • magnolia

            Relationship with the Living Christ is really where it is at. Rules are very secondary to that. Necessary for those who slip from living in the Spirit, as a safety net, but not of themselves inspiring!

            I hope you didn’t think that I was claiming hope as unique to Christians, though it does find its most complete fulfilment I believe in Christian belief, but God is Creator so it is discoverable in lots of little bits all over His Creation. Wouldn’t want to deny that!

          • Dreadnaught

            That’s to much information about your private life for which I have not a gnat’s interest. So the archive film evidence at the Nurembourg Trials was a total porn-fest by your logic.

          • A record and witness testimony to possibly the greatest act of human evil, bar one, is not the same as filming and broadcasting a suicide for public entertainment.

          • Dreadnaught

            Epic fail.

          • Ivan M

            You are talking nonsense. The Trials were a record of judicial proceedings. The evidence that the Nazis did what they did had to be presented even if it involves very disturbing films and images, since they were on trial for among other things crimes against humanity. It is to bolster the prosecution’s case. So that if today I were to deny that the Nazis were responsible you can direct me to the archives.

          • Dreadnaught

            Would you watch and ISIS execution ‘spectacular’ to confirm the gross acts they claim to be carrying out to please their god; or is it a bit too soon and colourful to contemplate? The adult mind is capable of being exposed to the truth and therefore able to make informed decisions how to combat these religious psychopaths.

          • DanJ0

            I’ve watched one video of one of those videos (the Nepalese group) so that I know what actually happens, and so that I can fully connect my anger and disgust at these extreme and violent Islamist groups. The actual footage is not as bad as one might think, which is a relief, but conceptually I feel better able to channel my anger and disgust now. I’ve watched some footage of Al Assad barrel-bombing a city so that I could engage properly in a discussion about it, and I really wish I hadn’t now because I wasn’t expecting it to be quite so graphic. I stopped the video when footage of a man carrying part of a dead boy to an ambulance appeared. I have also watched the video the blog owner posted once at the start of the so-called Arab Spring, if I recall correctly. That contained footage of a protestor dying in the street after being shot by the armed forces, and that had me sobbing uncontrollably at my keyboard. I can report that none of these were watched for entertainment, as some sort of pornography, as a snuff movie, or for ghoulish voyeurism reasons. I can also report that none of them has made me less empathic, or made me immune to their graphic nature, or reduced my humanity in any way. Rather the opposite, actually.

          • Dreadnaught

            I fully agree. Whether a person describes such scenes as pornographic depends very much on their own mindset which is already set against the man ending his own agony and anyone witnessing it engaging in some some sense of perverted enjoyment.
            No one in 1939 UK would have believed what was to follow in the Holocaust from simply word of mouth: those scenes have to be shown to bring home what can happen when we are blinded by our own ignorance of the historical record.
            The fools here who who would prefer that Simon died out of sight and gasping for air and in their opinion was having a ‘good death’ have probably never seen that image either. Out of sight and out of mind.

      • Dreadnaught

        I didn’t watched a man die I watched a brave and courageous man slap death in the face.

        • Anton

          Who won?

          • Dreadnaught

            What kind of a nonsense is that? – it certainly wasn’t a competition or deserving of such an insensitive cheap shot from you Anton.

          • Anton

            Don’t leave open goals…

          • Dreadnaught

            If this is levity you do surprise me; not consistent with the impression I had formed of you as a person.

          • DanJ0

            Me neither, actually. A little disappointing.

          • Anton

            You talked about slapping death in the face and this brought to mind the image of a contest between the man and death, something that has often been portrayed at the highest level of literature and culture. I made the point – using satire, which is good enough for Aristophanes – that death always wins. I do not agree that the man slapped death in the face.

          • Dreadnaught

            He did slap death in the face because he had no fear of it. It was also a slap in the face the rest of you would-be meddlers who probably don’t have the bottle to do as he did. I hope you don’t contract the same disease or similar and be haunted by the comments you have made on this thread.

          • Anton

            If you like, he slapped death in the face and death then gave him a knockout blow.

            NB I’ve not taken the mick out of the man himself at any stage.

          • Dreadnaught

            Whatever.

          • Anton

            I don’t understand why it suits you to think I did.

        • carl jacobs

          Was there a corpse at the end?

          • Dreadnaught

            I didn’t see one – nor did anyone else.

          • carl jacobs

            So they didn’t show him die in the presentation. Is that correct?

          • Dreadnaught

            That is correct if you ignore the fact that he was already dying from an incurable disease.

          • carl jacobs

            That choice significantly improves the moral basis of the show. Knowing that someone is going to die, and then presenting him as dead after the fact is not problematic.

          • Dreadnaught

            Calling it a ‘show’ is lamentable from a man of your intellect and vocabulary.

          • carl jacobs

            Fair enough. Point taken. “Show” is a neutral term to me. It simply means a unique broadcast event on TV. But I can see how it would present.

          • “No, millions of BBC viewers watched a real person flick an effectual switch and really die. He closed his eyes right there in front of ours, while his distraught but brave wife held his hand and watched him slip away.”

          • carl jacobs

            I didn’t say it fixed it. And I still wouldn’t have watched it.

          • The article suggests the man’s death was filmed.

          • carl jacobs

            But Dreadnaught said it wasn’t. He is a primary source.

          • DanJ0

            If you watch it then you can speak authoritatively about its contents. It’s a much better position to be in, you know.

          • Yes. Did so last night. The moment of death was not filmed, although pushing the button was. Jack stands by all his previous comments. An appalling spectacle.

          • DanJ0

            I’m absolutely astonished that what you saw you consider nothing short of pornography etc. Actually, I’m really quite disturbed. You’re sick in the head.

          • You judge moral issues on the basis of feeling, not objectively or rationally. Anyone who doesn’t share your rather juvenile and emotive reactions is simply dismissed.

          • DanJ0

            After reading your comment, I went to Google to try to find similar reactions to it by, well, anyone. I’ve clicked on dozens of articles about it, clicked on forum posts, looked at twitter … I can’t find a single one.

          • Tried any Catholic or orthodox Christian sites? Unlikely a Christian would comment as they would probably avoid watching such a programme.

          • DanJ0

            I’m trying with no success. Perhaps you can help out?

          • You carry on.

          • DanJ0

            Ah, Dodo. You over-extend yourself in these situations and it always ends badly for you.

          • Didn’t take too long.

            “But what on earth was the BBC thinking? This is taking the principle of ‘edgy’ television to a whole new and gruesome level. Exploring sensitivities around death is one thing, but actually filming the last moments of someone’s life and then allowing it to be broadcast to millions is something else entirely.”

            We’re not all governed by emotions.

            The programme was obscene – and all you can think to ask is a question about a dog! It figures. It really does.

            http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bbcs.decision.to.advertise.suicide.is.a.disgrace/79375.htm

          • DanJ0

            I’ll leave the reader to decide if the article in that link addresses what I said.

            But this bit in the article is curious:

            “By showing this programme at all, there is the suggestion that what Binner did is the norm in society today.”
            Not that Dodo would know what was said in the programme, but I recall the consultant pointed out that only about 1% of MND sufferers in the UK choose assisted suicide. The programme also made the point that palliative care was good enough that the others would not suffer as one might think.

          • You thought the consultant was okay? Simon was hardly being rational. Jack formed the impression he was enjoying the attention of the filming and using it as a distraction for his illness. Look at how she treated the wife.

            “This film was emotional and it was very, very sad. But relying upon emotions and feelings to make laws is a very, very bad idea.”

            “Do you want to know what the woman who runs suicide clinic Eternal Spirit said to Mr Binner’s wife when she visited the clinic and expressed doubts? Dr Erika Preisig asked Debbie if she wanted to keep her husband alive just so he could be her ‘human pet’. That is a disgusting, insulting, rude and utterly absurd statement. Even considering it makes my blood boil. That is emotional blackmail, founded upon a deeply unsettling worldview.”

          • DanJ0

            Is that what she actually said, Dodo?

          • Jack can’t recall her exact words. She was putting pressure on the wife who was opposed to Simon’s decision – as were many of his friends and family.

          • DanJ0

            Given that you claim you’ve watched it, you won’t have any issues about rewatching that bit. We’re talking about the bit where they are talking around the table, right? I’ve just done so myself as I didn’t remember it that way at all. Perhaps you can report back. If it turns out she didn’t say anything like that then what will you think about the article whose link you’ve posted?

          • Jack’s watched it once – that’s more than enough.

          • DanJ0

            You don’t need to watch it all the way through. It’s around 32 minutes in. I thought what she actually said was quite profound in a way. Let me help you reassess the article:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b070jm26/how-to-die-simons-choice

          • Jack recollects her being really very patronising towards the wife and letting her own world view about self killing dictate her responses. Non-directive counselling it wasn’t. The selfishness of Simon’s decision also came through too.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, you don’t need to rely on recollection. You have the link right there at the click of a mouse to watch it again. Press play, drag the timeline to 32 minutes, and watch. Then tell me that the article you posted was accurate and fair.

          • Nah ….

          • DanJ0

            Aren’t you really embarrassed now? You’re refusing to check the accuracy of the article you posted a link to, which takes almost no time or effort to do. You could have done so and then retracted it but you’d rather cross your arms like a child and refuse to acknowledge what is right there in front of you. How does this help your image in any way at all?

          • Image? What an odd person you are. Back to *forum chess*?

          • DanJ0

            It’s a basic honesty and integrity thing, Dodo. Moreover, you’ve enjoyed yourself with Linus too often to try to get all huffy now. The reason you won’t click on that link before you is because you know you’ll have to admit to me that the article isn’t accurate and you simply can’t bring yourself to do that no matter how bad it looks to refuse.

          • You could always take it up with the author of the article. Maybe she has other sources of information given the programme was subject to last minute changes. Are you calling her a liar?

          • DanJ0

            You posted the link yourself, quoted that specific piece of text in it, and you’ve allegedly watched the programme. You asked me to look at how she treated his wife! But what is claimed it’s not actually true, is it? You have the evidence right before you.

          • Jack will not be watching the programme again. He recollects the doctor being patronising and putting pressure on the wife to support her husband’s decision despite her very genuine and substantial reservations. As an assessment it was a deeply flawed process and the second doctor was even more superficial.
            Indeed, Jack’s overall impression is that Simon was being motivated in part by the filming and publicity and that is why he considers the programme so obscene and, yes, pornographic. Leave your emotions at the door and watch it objectively.

          • DanJ0

            “Jack will not be watching the programme again.”

            No-one is asking you to watch the programme again. I’ve asked you to watch the snippet relevant to the text you chose to quote, and provided you with a link and the specific time where it happens. You have refused to do so. Now, why would that be Dodo?

          • Anton

            Perhaps because this is not a courtroom and you are not a judge.

          • DanJ0

            I am holding him to account for his comments here, which I think is entirely reasonable.

          • DanJ0

            “You judge moral issues on the basis of feeling, not objectively or rationally.”

            Also, that’s a curious comment. I’m trying to find a comment of mine here that actually talks about the moral issues.

          • Well quite.

          • DanJ0

            It’s not “Well quite” at all. I haven’t discussed the moral issues and come to a judgement, rationally or otherwise. When I have debated abortion here, and when I refer to such things now, is it really accurate to say I’m using feelings as the basis? Really?

          • Here’s your comment on the programme:
            “The response to it of most people I have talked to online was a flood of tears while watching it. It was almost unbearable to watch …”
            The rest have been criticisms of other people’s views.

          • DanJ0

            That is evidence of my judging the moral issues, is it? It simply demonstrates my humanity, I’d say. I’ve yet to talk about the moral issues.

          • “I’ve yet to talk about the moral issues.” Exactly. It’s evidence of your total oversight of any moral issues.

            “It simply demonstrates my humanity.” There’s more to being human than having your heart strings pulled by an indecent TV programme.

          • DanJ0

            “It’s evidence of your total oversight of any moral issues.”

            In which case, it’s not evidence of this:

            “You judge moral issues on the basis of feeling, not objectively or rationally.”

            Is it?

          • True. It is more accurate to say you ignore the moral dimension and judge issues on the basis of feeling and not objectively or rationally.

          • DanJ0

            Where’s the evidence that I’ve judged the issue of assisted dying on the basis of feelings rather than an objective or rational moral assessment?

          • We’re talking about the TV programme and Jack’s and others views it was improper. You clearly have a view the programme was acceptable and have been banging on about it for two evenings. All you can talk about is how it made you feel.

          • DanJ0

            When I asked whether anyone had watched it,none of the people complaining about it had even done so! Yet you were all variously banging on about snuff movies, pornography, and ghoulish voyeurism. You claim you eventually watched it last night but you appear to have been lying through your teeth, I have a view about the acceptability of its broadcast based on the fact that I actually watched it and said why I did so. That sounds like quite a rational approach to the issue to me! We haven’t really got further than that.

          • Jack has watched the programme and refuses to watch it again, or snippets of it, to satisfy some weird game of yours. Having watched it, he stands by his comments. Now you should really watch it again – dispassionately and unemotionally – and judge it rationally and objectively. It was an awful documentary. Just awful. It was exploitative of Simon and his family.

          • DanJ0

            You quoted that specific piece of text from the article you posted a link to. The quote is not accurate if it’s the scene around the table in the garden and in fact it is a complete distortion of the truth. There is no weird game here. I’ve challenged that quote and made it very, very easy for you to check it. You refuse for some reason, and I think we both know why. You don’t need to watch the whole programme again. If, indeed, you actually watched it last night which it appears you did not.

          • Just uncritical emotionalism. Not thought out at all.

          • DanJ0

            Should I dig some of my comments from past threads on this topic?

            Here’s one:

            http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/belgium-to-euthanise-her-children.html

          • Hardly a wonderful contribution from you on that one. You actually agreed with the principle of parents having the right to decide to kill children.

            “Children are subjects-of-a-life and, even though parents or guardians decide on the basis of what’s in their best interest, it’s too far to include killing them, except perhaps in extremis, and children are not capable of deciding rationally for themselves. It’s the being a subject-of-a-life that really matters.”

          • DanJ0

            Does that look like “uncritical emotionalism” to you? I’m challenging this characterisation of yours:

            “You judge moral issues on the basis of feeling, not objectively or rationally. Anyone who doesn’t share your rather juvenile and emotive reactions is simply dismissed”

            The link was also useful as it shows part of the evolution of your Happy Jack ID. Was this true at the time:

            “Recently Jack got a back-dated DLA payment and has been able to splash out on a few luxuries.”

          • Hard to say what your comment demonstrates as you just shrugged off Jack’s observation at the time.

          • DanJ0

            It’s not hard at all. My comments there are clearly not examples of “uncritical emotionalism”. You’ve just been trying it on when your back is against the wall here. It’s bollocks and you know it.

          • DanJ0

            In fact, I’m so astonished that I’d prefer to think you are lying about watching it than have a personality which responds to it in that way. Tell me, what happened one morning with the dog?

          • It left Jack cold – but then witnessing manifest evil has that effect on him.

          • DanJ0

            But what happened one morning with the dog?

          • Jack refuses to be cross-examined.

          • DanJ0

            I invite the reader to draw their own conclusions here.

          • DanJ0

            Naturally if I make too much of a fuss after this then it can still be watched but I think that was very, very telling.

          • Well, you would, wouldn’t you?

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, you have a long history of lying like a cheap watch here. You could have blown my comment out of the water with a handful of words but you refused to say what happened instead.

          • Why should Jack play your game? It amuses him seeing your reaction to his refusal.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, your refusal shouts out that you were lying. You’ve been caught red-handed and pretending to be amused isn’t going to change that.

          • Jack is mused. The whole point of those scenes with the cute dog was to suggest we treat dogs more humanely than people.

          • DanJ0

            You’re still not saying what happened, despite being willing to talk about other stuff. I actually saw the dog and his relationship with it as a sort of motif for the sadness and grief. I think you’re watching it now as we speak. Too late, Dodo.

          • Yes, but Jack does know what happened.

          • Anton

            Where has Jack lied? I’ve had plenty of head to heads with him on theological issues and never regarded him as having lied, ie said something he believed was untrue.

          • DanJ0

            *chokes*

            I’m half tempted to start posting historical links to all his past multiple IDs and his very public shenanigans but this is the top article and it’d be unfair to the blog owner. Think Linus, and then some, and then some more.

          • Dreadnaught

            Not averse to disrupting a thread to suit his own amusement either when he’s nothing left in the arsenal but then resorts to cut and paste any old rubbish.

          • sarky

            It’s a bit of a tradition of christians to take the moral high ground on something they haven’t even seen.

          • DanJ0

            That may be true but what I’ve pretty much demonstrated is that Dodo is not standing on moral high ground at all. Rather, he’s standing in a swamp below sea-level with the stagnant water pooling up to his chin.

          • CliveM

            I haven’t seen rape, a child being buggered, a person murdered, any of the ISIS snuff movies or a Granny being slapped over her head for a purse. Am I not the allowed a moral view on these things?

            Grow up Sarky and start engaging these posts in an intelligent manner. Your snide little one liners simply embarrass yourself.

          • sarky

            Erm…..I was talking about tv shows, movies, plays etc.

          • CliveM

            You were talking in relation to a specific show regarding assisted suicide. Let’s be honest if Christians had watched this show, you would simply trotted out that they were “hypocrites” for watching something they disapproved of and wishing to deny to others. Indeed it would not matter how Christians responded, you would still have found a reason to criticise.

            What this is about is the morality of assisted suicide and whether the BBC is right to show it. You don’t have to see it to have a view. Indeed if you think it wrong to be shown, how do you watch it without being a hypocrite?

          • sarky

            Well I hope you afford the same courtesy to people who criticise church without ever having been.

          • CliveM

            It would depend what aspect they were criticising. I wouldn’t for example think it necessary to attend church to enable the person to criticise child abide cover ups where they have happened.

          • sarky

            You know that’s not what I was talking about.

          • CliveM

            What were you talking about? Please enlighten?

          • DanJ0

            “What this is about is the morality of assisted suicide and whether the BBC is right to show it. You don’t have to see it to have a view.”

            To have an informed and detailed view, I think one probably does have to see it. Surely real world cases ought to be relevant to any debates about assisted suicide itself and laws surrounding it? The BBC is ideal as an independent public service organisation to broadcast programmes which might inform debates about the issue. Whether the BBC was right to commission this particular format and broadcast this particular content is something that can be argued over but one needs to have see the programme to discuss that, I’d have thought. If someone argues that (say) the programme was exploitative of the family involved then someone like me might come back with some specific counter-arguments, such as the fact that his wife is presumably articulate, intelligent, and media-savvy with contacts in the industry given that she is a former Sky News presenter.

          • CliveM

            Danjo

            I won’t speak for others and how media savvy or not his wife is, is of secondary relevance. My issue isn’t with the programme or format, it is with the filming of the suicide. It is also with the rights and wherefores of assisted suicide. These arguments aren’t (or at least shouldn’t be) impacted by the media savvines of the wife. Indeed I feel it’s a mistake to get hung up about them. The question still remains, was the BBC right to show the suicide (or at least the bit of it they did)?
            That is a moral question, not a question of savvines or good production.

          • DanJ0

            That specific bit i.e. whether the BBC was right to show the immediate lead up to his death, is as you say something that one can argue about without watching the programme. Whether assisted suicide itself, is morally right or wrong for the people involved, is a theoretical question completely independent of the programme. Whether the law should be changed or not, beyond that moral question, I think is a debate informed by programmes such as these. The programme didn’t address the moral question at all, as far as I could tell. It was Simon Binner’s story documented by film makers on his request for his own reasons, who were, as far as I could tell, very aware of their responsibilities. Simon Binner’s wife has published their reasons for taking part and her response to the resulting documentary.

          • CliveM

            Well I have no objection in principle to programmes discussing the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide. Whether this was the right programme and format I cannot say.

            I can say I have a moral objection to its portrayal of a large part of the individuals suicide.

            Beyond that I think it best to keep my thoughts to myself!

          • Dreadnaught

            There was no button to press – he rolled back the stop valve on a drip-line.

          • Yes, Jack knows and it took him two or three rolls. Correct? And the filming faded to shots in a mirror. Correct?

          • Dreadnaught

            No BUTTON!

          • Look Colombo – it was an expression. Go pester someone else.

          • Dreadnaught

            .So you watched a pornographic film and abandoned your much vaunted principles after someone pointed out how ludicrous you were to rant on about something you had no knowledge of.

          • Call it research. Jack wouldn’t watch it for an evening’s entertainment or to be moved by the experience. Very troubling it was too on very many fronts.

          • carl jacobs

            To be clear, I interpreted that to mean “He flicked the switch, closed his eyes … fade to black.” Dreadnaught watched it. If he says it did not show the moment of death, I have no reason to disbelieve him. His testimony stands uncontradicted.

          • DanJ0

            Motor neuron disease. A particularly horrible way to die.

          • DanJ0

            To be fair, they intended to show the corpse being taken away in a coffin I believe.

          • Dreadnaught

            I prefer the expression ‘the dead man Simon’ to that of the corpse of some unknown person. Language and context is the first casualty of dehumanisation.

          • DanJ0

            Fair dos, I was simply and specifically echoing Carl’s term.

          • carl jacobs

            “Corpse” is not de-humanizing. It is factual. I don’t say “passed on” either. Death should be confronted directly and with open eyes. Not cheesy euphemisms.

          • DanJ0

            Most people don’t say “passed on” in the UK anymore. They simply say “passed” or “passed away” now. There’s probably something significant in that. I noticed the change about five years ago.

          • Why not “death” and “died”?

          • DanJ0

            I don’t know. It’s certainly “died” in my lexicon.

          • Dreadnaught

            Neither do I. As I said; context is everything.

      • sarky

        Yet you are happy to have icons and pictures of a man dying horrendously on a cross in your churches or hanging round your necks.

        • DanJ0

          I doubt Calvinists do that! 🙂

          • sarky

            I think you’re right, it was more of a generalisation 🙂

        • carl jacobs

          I used the phrase “watch a man die.” I am referring to the transitive quality of the lived experience that a picture cannot capture. It’s the act of willfully being there before, during, and after death in order to vicariously experience the moment that is so troubling. One man dies while another looks on wondering what it is like – both to reaffirm his own continued existence and to peer behind the veil. The sense of violation is profound. It exposes a man’s most profound nakedness and his most vulnerable point. Pictures do not and cannot capture this transitive experience.

          If we happen to be with a loved one when he dies, we stay. We do it for the dying so they won’t be alone at that moment. It’s an obligation of love to see through to the end. It’s also futile because ultimately we all die alone. But it’s the best we can do, and we do what we can. The spectator watching the TV set has no such motivation. He can’t help but intrude upon something he has no right to experience. He is an interloper whose motivations are largely focused on himself and not the dying. He wants to see things he has never seen before. He wants to experience something he has never witnessed before. That’s why I used the phrase “ghoulish voyeurism.”

          The Christian today metaphorically stands with John at the foot of the Cross and watches Him die knowing full well why He is doing it. It is an obligation and we owe it to Him for Who He is and why He is doing it. We know Him, so we stay. And then with John, we arrive at the empty tomb and see the folded grave clothes. And we know. Yes, we remember. Yes, we memorialize. We would be fools not to do so. His death is our death and His empty tomb is our empty tomb. My death and my tomb. That’s about as personal as it gets.

          We are not ashamed of the Cross. sarky. We proclaim it. For what happened on that Cross is both the center of Human existence and the center of time.

          • cacheton

            ‘That’s about as personal as it gets.’ ..’both the center of Human existence and the center of time.’

            Yes, but it is symbolic – ‘metaphorical’ if you like. It is not literal. Maybe it WAS literal 2000 years ago, maybe not, but that point is irrelevant. To us alive today it is NOT literal. The confusion of the two – symbolic and literal – is unhelpful. But I think it arises from the wish to be taken seriously, literal is still seen as ‘better’ than symbolic, like objective is ‘better’ than subjective. Nothing could be further from reality, as objective is always seen through subjective eyes. Thus a man dying on a cross is transformed into something else because of the symbolic value of it, and you (and other christians) no longer see the literal, therefore do not have a problem having a dying man hung round your neck.

            Can you at least see that if you then write ‘There is something to be said for refusing on principle to watch a man die.’ people are understandably going to point out the cognitive dissonance?

          • carl jacobs

            You are wrong. It is very real today because death is very real today. When I said “His death is my death and His tomb is my tomb” I meant that very literally. That is the essence of the atonement. He died my death for me. Now complete the couplet. His resurrection is my resurrection. His life is my life. His righteousness is my righteousness. His victory is my victory. It all fits together to form a complete whole. Good Friday never stands alone. The Cross is always seen in the transcendent light of the empty tomb. Always.

            It is victory that the Cross proclaims. Victory over sin. Victory over death. A Victory purchased on a Friday and sealed for eternity in the early hours of a Sunday morning.

          • cacheton

            I understand from your answer that you think ‘symbolic’ is not ‘real’. Symbolic is very real, and as I explained in my last post it is even more ‘real’ than the literal. Its the mixing up of the 2 – symbolic and literal – which does religions no favours and makes them a laughing stock for some people.

            ‘”His death is my death and His tomb is my tomb” I meant that very literally.’
            No you didn’t Carl, because you are not dead are you. See what I mean about mixing up the symbolic and literal?

    • Uncle Brian

      Where I live we don’t get the real BBC, only the useless and barely watchable BBC World News channel. But even if I’d had the choice, I might not have watched the programme. Of course it’s unfair to call it a snuff movie, as others have pointed out, but all the same I suspect it would have been too harrowing for my taste, not to mention for my heart condition.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldnews/programmes/schedules/latinamerica?utcoffset=-02%3A00

      • BBC iPlayer?

        • Uncle Brian

          Thanks for the suggestion, Jack, but that’s not available here either.

          What can I watch on iPlayer outside the UK?

          Because of rights agreements, you can only download or stream BBC iPlayer TV programmes while you’re inside the UK.

          What you can do outside the UK

          If you’ve downloaded programmes when in the UK you can enjoy these offline when abroad. It might be a good idea to stock up before you leave.

          If you are already outside the UK and haven’t downloaded any of our TV programmes then, unfortunately, there is no content available to you. However, you can still enjoy the great output from BBC Radio. To find out more visit the iPlayer Radio site.

          http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/outsideuk

      • DanJ0

        It’s the empathic response to all involved that is hard to bear. That someone dies at the end of the process is the least of it.

  • Uncle Brian

    Somebody else, not me, brought up the subject of pornography, so here’s a news snippet for our entertainment:

    Ted Cruz’s campaign has pulled its most recent ad, “Conservatives Anonymous,” after learning one of the actors in the spot is also a softcore porn star.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/soft-core-porn-actress-in-new-cruz-ad-choosing-between-him-a?utm_term=.bnD6Oa6KV#.mgLP3yP6a

  • Mike Stallard

    As God retreats from our lives,
    as humanists take over the world,
    Human Life becomes an optional extra.

  • “The BBC’s own guidance warns that “Factual reporting and fictional portrayal of suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm have the potential to make such actions appear possible and even appropriate, to the vulnerable.” ….

    Shame on the BBC for showing this. Shame on them for advertising suicide. Shame on them for repeatedly failing to highlight the alternatives, such as palliative care and hospices. MPs voted down the last attempt to permit assisted suicide and did so by a clear and overwhelming majority. This documentary was deeply disturbing and it is a disgrace that the BBC chose to show it.”

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/bbcs.decision.to.advertise.suicide.is.a.disgrace/79375.htm

    • Dreadnaught

      How typical of the duplicitous DoDo to credit only half a tale and smugly pass it off as authoritative of some auguste body that backs is view of a programme he never saw. He cuts and pastes as though he has played a trump card and deliberately omits the fact that it clearly stated that the ranting author James Mildred ‘works for CARE but writes in a personal capacity’.
      The most undignified element of this man’s death was to have to be carried onto a plane, to go to a foreign country to die, rather than at home, in total privacy troubling no one.
      His own Country made him suffer more than he had to … because it has no faith in its competency to draft sound legislation.
      Simon wanted the film to be made and shown as a legacy for future sufferers who may not have the financial resources and inner resolve that he had at his command.
      Had this film been shown to MPs before they voted (they can research palliative care homes at will) the vote could have caused them to visit the agonising reality of living with a terminal illness, rather than sit on the fence and opt for status quo.
      One day there will be a referendum and there will be no need to focus on gleefully trying to shoot the messenger as DoDo and Mildred have done in directing their pious bile at the BBC.

      • Do calm down. DanJo asked for an example of support for the views posted criticising the programme. He claimed he couldn’t find any. It took Jack all of 30 seconds to find and post one.

        The authors views are just as valid as your opinion notwithstanding he works in the field of terminal illness. Indeed, they’re probably more valid given they are informed by knowledge and not by fear and emotion.

        • DanJ0

          Entertainment, snuff movie, nothing short of pornography, and ghoulish voyeurism. Those are the characterisations I have challenged, and the instances I was looking for off the blog by people who actually watched it.

          I can criticise this too:

          “Shame on the BBC for showing this. Shame on them for advertising suicide. Shame on them for repeatedly failing to highlight the alternatives, such as palliative care and hospices.”

          But that’s a rather different sort of argument.

          • And this:

            “This is taking the principle of ‘edgy’ television to a whole new and gruesome level. Exploring sensitivities around death is one thing, but actually filming the last moments of someone’s life and then allowing it to be broadcast to millions is something else entirely.”

            To say nothing of the inherent risks involved in ‘reality TV’ exploiting this man’s need for publicity as distraction and indirectly contributing to his decision. On several occasions it was obvious he was playing to the cameras.

            You just cannot grasp the moral degeneracy of it all.

          • DanJ0

            You’re simply asserting various things there. I note in passing that the programme was produced in partnership with the Open University. The film makers were these people:

            http://www.minnowfilms.co.uk/

          • Yes, certainly Jack is asserting you cannot grasp the moral degeneracy of a programme of this nature. And, you can’t because you have no objective moral compass by which to judge it. It’s all feelings and intuition and empathy.

          • DanJ0

            “And, you can’t because you have no objective moral compass by which to judge it.”

            Oh that’s an interesting turn of events now. Heh.

          • Jack knows when something is objectively wrong and is manifestly evil. You?

          • DanJ0

            Well, I said it was an interesting turn of events. Why? Because I think your tangent has unexpected consequences. If some people who have no “objective moral compass” by which to judge these things then does that mean they should have no part in influencing laws regarding moral issues? By “objective moral compass”, I reckon you’re alluding to morality backed by theism. Are you inadvertently suggesting that only Muslims and Christians should vote in Parliament? Afterall, you appear to be asserting that the rest of us are unable to properly recognise moral degeneracy.

          • On what basis do these judgements get made if there is no objectivity? What standard do you apply?

            People do have a moral code imprinted on their consciences and have an instinctive, subjective sense of right and wrong. Even the wife, family and friends of Simon knew, in some way, what he was doing was not quite right. They just didn’t have the language or words to express it because we don’t talk about truth or God any more. All the programme did was confuse all this behind a wall of emotionalism.

            So, no, Jack isn’t suggesting only theists vote in Parliament, although this would be better than the amoral crew there at the moment. What he’s saying is that in the absence of a belief in God and the language of moral theology we could at least start to make decisions on the basis of what evidentially promotes the common good rather than what individuals simply want or what an emotive TV programme puts out to pull at our heart strings.

            And expert opinion, across the spectrum from theists, atheists and agnostics, suggests it will damage society and put vulnerable groups at risk, if euthanasia is made available to the disabled, aged and infirm or the terminally ill.

          • DanJ0

            Careful, your bike chain might fall off doing that. 😉

            “People do have a moral code imprinted on their consciences and have an instinctive, subjective sense of right and wrong.”

            Do I not have one of those then? I’m a special case? You seem to be suggesting so:

            “Yes, certainly Jack is asserting you cannot grasp the moral degeneracy of a programme of this nature. And, you can’t because you have no objective moral compass by which to judge it. It’s all feelings and intuition and empathy.”

          • You do but it can be difficult to access and many people distort, deny or suppress it altogether.

          • DanJ0

            Naturally, unless my moral reasoning is in accord with the Roman Catholic Church then something has gone wrong with my conscience and instinctive, subject sense of right and wrong I suppose.

          • Possibly but you’re entitled to apply reason and express views on the basis of your conscience and act accordingly. However, we do know from history the pitfalls of improperly informed consciences..

          • DanJ0

            So, it may not be all feelings and intuition and empathy for me now? I might even be able to grasp the moral degeneracy of things like TV documentaries afterall. Phew.

            “Jack is asserting you cannot grasp the moral degeneracy of a programme of this nature. And, you can’t because you have no objective moral compass by which to judge it. It’s all feelings and intuition and empathy.”

            Hey, what’s that bike chain doing lying on the floor over there? They don’t normally fall off if one pedals forwards.

          • Jack said “possibly” ….

          • DanJ0

            Note the switch from my pointing out the various assertions about Simon Binner here:

            “To say nothing of the inherent risks involved in ‘reality TV’ exploiting this man’s need for publicity as distraction and indirectly contributing to his decision. On several occasions it was obvious he was playing to the cameras.”

            To this:

            “Yes, certainly Jack is asserting you cannot grasp the moral degeneracy of a programme of this nature.”

            Classic Dodo.

          • Jack stands by those comments too. If this had been presented to an ethics committee as a piece of research, Jack would have voted against approval.

          • DanJ0

            It’s a TV documentary. For heaven’sake!

          • Ah …. but broadcast into millions of homes during prime time viewing and intended to influence attitudes.

            You don’t think feel the BBC has a responsibility to behave ethically? Tell me you didn’t notice the obvious effect on Simon of the filming.

          • DanJ0

            No, I don’t think the BBC has to commission programmes meeting the criteria of an ethics committee for a piece of research.

          • Do you believe they should adhere to any standards?
            And you didn’t answer this: Tell me you didn’t notice the obvious effect on Simon of the filming.

          • DanJ0

            They should be responsible broadcasters, and that implies some sort of standard.

            “Tell me you didn’t notice the obvious effect on Simon of the filming.”

            I don’t know the man. His personality traits were alluded to in the programme, and you can take a guess at what he might have been like from his Linked In profile. The programme broadcast the concern of his friend about grandstanding gestures, and the comments Erica made about appearing to fix on a date irrespective of his quality of life at that time. I’ve read the comments from the film makers about the care they took about the cameras influencing him. In particular about the presence of the cameras possibly leading him to the conclusion.

          • You haven’t answered Jack’s question. There were several occasions when Jack thought he was playing to an audience. He was selected as the subject for a reason.

          • DanJ0

            “He was selected as the subject for a reason.”

            How was he selected? Why was he interested in taking part?

          • DanJ0

            I have things to say about this if I ever get an answer

          • And that makes a difference because … ?

          • DanJ0

            I’m just setting out the context.

          • And it makes a difference because … ?

          • DanJ0

            The film makers have a track record, and so does the Open University. Had it been Endermol …

          • Track record? It was certainly clever filming and editing and had an agenda. Very effective propaganda.

          • DanJ0

            Did the programme not adequately represent his wife’s views? Were the concerns of his friends covered? What about the legal criteria in Switzerland and the law in the UK? How about the vote in Parliament, were the results hidden at all? Were any alternatives to assisted dying presented? What about the statistics for MND and assisted dying?

          • Come now. You know the film was heavily loaded in favour of supporting Simon and his desire to kill himself. It exploited him to promote a cause.

          • DanJ0

            Actually, I don’t at all. I think you’re bringing that to the table yourself for your own agenda.

          • I think you’re right there.

          • DanJ0

            You’ve watched it then?

          • I flicked through it, enough to get the vibe.

          • Marie, be prepared to answer 20 random questions about the programme to verify your claim. The weblog’s self appointed judge stands ready to finger point and accuse.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, I asked you one simple question as I didn’t believe you had actually watched it, and you couldn’t even answer that one. Given your history of dishonesty, I think the reason why is obvious.

          • Jack refused to answer. There is a difference.

        • Dreadnaught

          Just as valid then probably more valid? You really are cack-handed when using you own words. You know bugger all about me or what I have been witness to.
          My response was addressing you usual penchant for cut and pasting to promote your own views in this case on suffering.

          • You work in the field of palliative care? Jack thinks not.

          • Dreadnaught

            I have worked in that area during my time in the ambulance service. I’ve seen life – but not one that you would recognise.

          • Ambulance crews do not offer palliative care for the terminally ill.

          • Dreadnaught

            I never said they did.

      • carl jacobs

        I hadn’t read that link Jack posted, but your description of it as a rant piqued my curiosity. That wasn’t a rant, Dreadnaught. That was a well-reasoned and well-written piece. That whole “human pet” story designed as it was to “engineer guilt” was especially poignant.

        because it has no faith in its competency to draft sound legislation.

        And rightly so. It couldn’t draft competent legislation on this matter. If it could draft competent legislation, it could not guarantee enforcement. And if it could guarantee enforcement, it could not guarantee the interpretation and understanding of the law would not be deliberately altered over time. Pass this kind of legislation, and you will end up killing inconvenient people “for their own good.” I have no doubt you will win in the end. Autonomy is a jealous god and it brooks no opposition. But remember that once you fill that cup, you will be required to drink it – every drop.

        • DanJ0

          “That whole “human pet” story designed as it was to “engineer guilt” was especially poignant.”

          *cough*

          • carl jacobs

            *cough*?

            Is this a lie?

            Do you want to know what the woman who runs suicide clinic Eternal Spirit said to Mr Binner’s wife when she visited the clinic and expressed doubts? Dr Erika Preisig asked Debbie if she wanted to keep her husband alive just so he could be her ‘human pet’. That is a disgusting, insulting, rude and utterly absurd statement. Even considering it makes my blood boil. That is emotional blackmail, founded upon a deeply unsettling worldview. No motor neurone sufferer is ever, at any stage, a ‘human pet’. No-one, no matter how debilitating their condition, is ever a ‘human pet’ because every life has value to it. This insensitive, crass question is unfair: it is designed to engineer guilt within those who disagree with assisted suicide.

          • DanJ0

            I don’t know but it’s not the truth if it’s the scene I’m thinking of.

          • carl jacobs

            He did not say it was in the documentary. I checked that specifically before posting.

          • DanJ0

            Yet it looks like a heavily distorted form of what was actually said in the documentary.

          • carl jacobs

            So educate me.

          • DanJ0

            She said that he’s not a child, that it’s his life, and that he knows what he wants to do. She said that he has spent a large amount of his life being responsible for his own life. She said that when people get severely ill like he has, people tend to treat them as if they are children [1]. She said that he still is a strong-minded person. She said to his wife that she understands that she wants to keep as long as possible because she loves him. She told them that it’s easier to have an assisted death than for the survivors to accept an assisted death.

            [1] I know enough disabled people to know the truth of that in general.

          • carl jacobs

            James Mildred put the phrase “human pet” in quotes. I did not see that phrase in your description. So he is either lying or he is recounting an event that occurred outside the editing of the documentary.

          • DanJ0

            That’s quite possible. However, we have the footage of the discussion as I have described, and no footage of what he reported in the link. Possibly they reshot the scene afterwards, though that seems a little unlikely to me. Possibly Mrs Binner even misremembered the conversation afterwards, as I know from experience that these things are quite traumatic.

          • carl jacobs

            Hard to believe she would incorrectly remember “human pet.” That phrase is memorable.

          • DanJ0

            Given the way she was talking to them, it doesn’t seem likely to me that she used that phrase. I was concerned at the start that she was steering them, but she was setting out some core stuff: that he was of sound mind, not depressed, and so on. At the end, she said he was welcome to come so it was an acceptance interview too. She reminded me a bit of a MacMillan nurse. I don’t think her role there is a counsellor.

          • The interview would have lasted longer than the few minutes given it in the film. She was patronising and accusing the wife of being selfish, of infantilising her husband and was building up and supporting Simon’s decision. She should have checked his mental condition more closely and what his wife was saying about this. She was there to judge the soundness of his decision making process. You think she did this?

          • DanJ0

            I think throughout the comments here you have manipulated their story to suit your own agenda, both before watching the programme and after (if you have indeed sat down quietly and watched it now from start to finish). I invite people to view the footage for themselves. I’ve provided the link further down, and the time when the interview was shown. Judge for yourselves using the primary source.

          • Yes but Jack’s watching it and the dynamics through professional eyes. The doctor could quite easily have made the comment about “human pet” to the wife. It would be entirely consistent with the broad approach she adopted.

          • DanJ0

            Professional eyes. Lol. Are you still claiming that? What happened to Happy Jack being a busker, living off DLA payouts and the like?

          • Oh he evolved and progressed into the Happy Jack you see before you today. Wonderful, inspiring story, what?

          • DanJ0

            Why should I believe you now, when you lied like a cheap watch before? You don’t seem to demonstrate a professional knowledge of or a professional attitude to mental health.

          • Oh, you’ll believe whatever suits your mean spirited and small minded vendetta against Happy Jack. Aren’t you bored with it all by now? Everyone else must be.

          • DanJ0

            Quick as a flash now you’re here: what are your professional qualifications? You know, like MSc etc. No googling now!

          • DanJ0

            And where’s he gone suddenly? 🙂

          • Jack does not intend to play your games, DanJo. It matters not to him what you choose to believe.

          • DanJ0

            It’s very easier to catch out liars.

          • Yep, in your imagination lots of things are easy.

          • DanJ0

            But it is easy! For example, one just needs to ask for a significant detail in a documentary someone is claiming to have seen, or for some professional qualifications that someone who is claiming to be a professional of that type ought to know. When they jump through hoops to avoid giving the answer, but are willing to write reams of other surrounding stuff, it becomes very obvious that they’re not telling the truth.

          • Jack just refuses to play your internet Grand Inquisition game. Who the h*ll do you think you are? Think what you want – you will regardless.
            Jack will end it all here as you clearly just want a platform for personal abuse and the temptation to become abusive in turn might get the better of him.

          • DanJ0

            I’m the person with whom you tried to play the “I’m a professional and you’re not” card, and I’m the person who called your bluff.

          • For the record, Jack is a professional and well experienced in these matters he is too. He was actually suggesting you watch the programme objectively and leave the sentimentalism, emotionalism and the tears at the door.
            Now goodnight and go find another person to pester.

          • DanJ0

            If you were truly a professional in this field then you’d have been able to respond immediately with a set of professional qualifications and certifications. For instance, an engineer in the UK might have written BSc or CEng or MIET. It would have taken no effort at all.

          • Who do you think you are expecting other bloggers to respond to your demands? What an ego. Grow up.

          • DanJ0

            Stop lying. Grow up.

          • Bearing false witness on a public weblog is very unbecoming behaviour, DanJo.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, you have no high ground there. None at all.

          • So don’t believe Happy Jack. Your opinion counts for nothing. However, as Jack said, bearing false witness on a weblog, especially a Christian one, is really unbecoming.

          • DanJ0

            I most certainly don’t believe you. I invite the reader to consider why the answer to that question about the scene in the documentary was not forthcoming. That is, Dodo here was not able to answer it because, contrary to what he claimed, he had not actually watched it at all. Having wed himself so solidly to the absurd notion that the documentary was nothing short of pornography, before watching it, I expect he felt unable to extract himself from that position. He has form there. Simon Binner’s wife says she’s very proud of the documentary, and describes it as a beautiful film. Compare and contrast, dear reader.

          • Dear reader, consider the patronising pomposity of the self appointed and self promoting Judge DanJo. Ask yourself if you would feel inclined cooperate with his demands or be tempted to give his pontifications the bird.

          • DanJ0

            “nothing short of pornography”

          • carl jacobs

            Ummm … so … A grapefruit is Jack’s highest evolved form? If I wasn’t a Creationist, I would find that hilarious. It almost makes me want to believe in evolution.

            😀

            It’s looking like 16-12-10, Jack. 60 points.

          • Ivan M

            It is the signature note. Even if the exact words were not used that is the meaning that was conveyed. I’ll go so far as to say since I don’t have the qualifications that those were the words used.

          • DanJ0

            How do you get that meaning from the footage? What Dr Preisig said was profound in its own way. Nothing to do with pets or human-pet relationships at all. This thread has been a real eye-opener for me: the variance between expectation and reality in particular. The documentary was very sad, poignant and rather beautiful in its own way. Most people who saw it seem to have found it so. It shows the terrible progression of the disease. It shows the warmth of Simon Binner’s family and friends. It shows the steps in acceptance over time. It shows the bravery of everyone involved. Along the way it flags the alternatives, and the statistics, and the concurrent debate in Parliament with the vote result, it shows some of the process and the issues, and it shows the leadup to his death as depicted almost completely in the article picture above. His actual death is the least of it, really, though we don’t see it. The story is bracketed by a church service, with an urn and some eulogies. The vicar is a woman, which will probably outrage some people here even more. I still find it absolutely astonishing and really rather disgusting how the documentary has been characterised here by people who haven’t actually seen it (and by Dodo who probably has now but hasn’t the personal honesty and integrity to retract his filth).

          • “That’s quite possible.”
            Yep.
            “Possibly Mrs Binner even misremembered the conversation afterwards …”
            Watch that hole your peddling backwards into.

          • DanJ0

            I realise that you’ve had a bruising encounter and you’re a bit sore as a result but you brought it on yourself. If you behave with honesty and integrity, things will go much better for you here and in real life.

            We have the footage of the interview shown in the documentary, though you absolutely refuse to watch that bit again, and what Dr Preisig said was appropriate in tone and content when asked that question by Mrs Binner.

            If there was more to the conversation and that phrase was used then we need the context to judge it and we don’t have it. Given what we do have, it sounds very unlikely. She is a woman with a great deal of experience of talking to people in this situation.

            On the flip side, it’s very convenient for Christian pressure groups to report that this was said off camera. It makes good propaganda copy and stirs the emotions of people who wanted to be outraged. Yet what we have for sure is the documentary, and his wife’s positive written reaction to it afterwards.

          • In Jack’s professional opinion, Dr Preisig’s interventions silenced Mrs Binner who had reservations about her husband’s decision. She wanted to appear supportive on camera and wasn’t terribly comfortable openly criticising him.
            Go on spit it out. Are you suggesting the author of the article might be a liar? That he made up the phrase “human pet”? Perhaps you should quiz him about it.

          • DanJ0

            No, I don’t think he’s a liar. I suspect he’s repeating something he’s heard. But who knows? We don’t have the footage containing a conversation like that, just footage containing a conversation addressing the question appropriately.

            We also have an article about the programme with his wife’s name on it. She doesn’t mention the alleged conversation at all, but she does say why they helped make the documentary. Nothing to do with pornography, it seems.

            “There was nothing we could do for ourselves; but we hoped our story may help others. We also had faith in the documentary makers who we knew would make a beautiful film about an ordinary family dealing with an extraordinary situation. We are so proud of the film”

            http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/i-loved-simon-him-end-7366618

          • Did you miss this:

            “His passing may have involved an element of choice, yet for me it has left me more, not less, conflicted about assisted dying.”

            And this:

            “Campaigners for assisted dying under-estimate how terrible it is for those left behind. Yes, it was better than suicide in some awful manner. But I’m glad I fought him over it.”

            And there was precious little in-depth exploration of the moral issues concerned despite this:

            “Simon’s decision was never just about an illness. It made us grapple with the whole point of human existence and consider the sanctity of life itself.”

            And this just confirms the programme was intended as propaganda:

            “It’s time for a grown-up debate for all of our sakes and we hope the film helps stimulates that.”
            We’ve had the debate in Parliament and the conclusion was overwhelming.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, I watched the documentary from start to finish. All of that came out in the documentary. You haven’t actually watched it properly even now, have you?

          • Jack watched it once and is beginning to wonder if you have actually seen it. That or your idea of an in-depth discussion of the moral issues and the sanctity of life is very different to Jack’s. And Jack cannot recall the indirect implications for other disabled people, the frail and dependent elderly, and the terminally ill being explored.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, it was a narrative by Minnow Films: “Minnow Films is an award-winning independent production company, renowned for its sensitive and intelligent portrayal of powerful human stories.” It clearly wasn’t intended to be an in-depth discussion of the moral issues and the sanctity of life. Really, you can’t possibly have seen the programme if you’re saying stuff like this.

          • “Minnow Films is an award-winning independent production company, renowned for its sensitive and intelligent portrayal of powerful human stories.”

            From their very own website. They’re hardly likely to describe themselves in less glowing terms.

            You seemed to have overlooked this:
            “Our work focuses on producing bold and ground breaking films that sit at the very cutting edge of documentary making.”
            Jack would replace “bold”, “ground breaking” and “cutting edge” with other adjectives.

          • DanJ0

            I see you’re carefully sliding away from the point: whether the programme was intended to be “an in-depth discussion of the moral issues and the sanctity of life” or a “sensitive and intelligent portrayal of powerful human stor[y]” i.e. a narrative.

          • Yeah, Jack agrees, it was a story – a “narrative” – promoting one particular view point. It skirted over the substantial points and was driven by feelings.Soft propaganda for euthanasia shouldn’t be aired on the BBC.

          • DanJ0

            Clearly it didn’t promote one particular viewpoint, as you’d know if you’d watched it properly from start to finish. That was a significant part of the story.

          • Of come off it … you’re kidding, right? We were deliberately drawn into the human tragedy of this man’s illness and his obvious fears about his decline, as a way of legitimising euthanasia. There was no counter-balance to his acute feelings of despair at all. Imagine if you were a MND suffer yourself watching that programme.
            Jack watched it and watched it “properly” too. Unlike you, he didn’t get drawn into the sentimentalism and emotionalism of it all.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, one of the core themes was the difference of opinion between Simon Binner and his wife, and how that came to a head and was partially resolved towards the end. She had the last word on that, of course, as anyone who watched it knows. The MND and assisted death statistics, the Parliamentary vote, the natural death possibility, all balanced what was, essentially his story. The context was that he announced his intentions on LinkedIn after his diagnosis so of course that was the driving theme. Also, he wanted assisted dying to be legal in the UK and produced videos with the BHA to that end. That’s not in dispute. The programme wasn’t a perfectly balanced documentary at all, but it wasn’t arguing for assist suicide either.

          • As Jack said, it was soft propaganda for euthanasia.

            “The programme wasn’t a perfectly balanced documentary at all, but it wasn’t arguing for assist suicide either.”
            Of course it was – indirectly.

          • DanJ0

            You’re merely asserting that, unlike my evidenced comment. Still, it’s a little better than calling it “nothing short of pornographic”.

          • But all your comments are opinion. You simply assert different things. All those elements you cited were well in the ‘background’ to the prime focus on Simon and what he wanted, promoting emotionalism and sympathy as opposed to a cool headed look at the issues. It was a campaigning documentary intended to present Simon’s decision as reasonable.

            And, yes, filming his last moments, even if not fully shown because of objections, was ghoulish, voyeuristic, intrusive and pornographic.

          • DanJ0

            His decision was reasonable.

          • From an atheist humanist perspective, dismissing objective morality and not taking into account wider implications for the common good, possibly assisted self killing is “reasonable”.

            No man is an island, however, and such relativism begs a lot of questions that were either not addressed in the film or were only addressed superficially as background.

          • DanJ0

            Dodo, he was an intelligent, articulate, strong-minded, successful businessman with a progressive physical illness that killed him in under a year. Assisted dying in Switzerland at a time of his choosing by taking enough barbituate to send him to sleep peacefully and to go on to kill him was one option. The other was to continue to physically deteriorate until a few months later either his diaphram failed and he suffocated to death or perhaps for pneumonia to kill him before that point. Of course his decision was reasonable given his beliefs. It would be very wrong for you to try to stop him doing that. What you are talking about is a different thing altogether: whether it is right and reasonable to change the law in the UK to allow assisted dying.

          • His illness did not kill him within the year. Jack can maintain his decision to kill himself was understandable but wrong and unreasonable without trying to prevent him travelling to Switzerland to be helped to kill himself. Assisting him getting there is another matter.

          • Did Jack miss a round table discussion between the family and an orthodox Christian minister/priest advising Mr Billing that what he was considering was gravely sinful and prohibited according to Church teaching and challenging his decision by giving another perspective? His wife may well have had more to say at such an encounter.

          • DanJ0

            He was a humanist, you moron.

          • Yet he had a Christian funeral and part of the eulogy was “this is not the last word for Simon”?

          • DanJ0

            Are you now claiming he wasn’t a humanist?

          • Nope but the Christian ‘funeral service’ was odd, wouldn’t you agree? And the woman vicar appeared very upbeat too. Gave it all a further gloss of acceptability.

          • DanJ0

            Perhaps some of his friends or family are Christians? Perhaps he was exercising his legal right to a CofE funeral in his local parish? Even I may have my ashes interred in a CofE graveyard with the rest of my family. Afterall, as an a-theist it really doesn’t matter to me in the scheme of things. I don’t even mind being buried at a crossroads, in the historic manner, but I think that might be a bit unfair on the Virgin Media people who tend to site their distribution boxes there.

          • Perhaps …

  • Little Black Censored

    “Together they confront the terrible choices involved…” (Patrick Holland)
    That is just posturing. The trouble is, they do not think any terrible choices are involved at all.

  • It is a travesty to call that death clinic Eternal Spirit.

    By its very existence, the owners deny that human life does not end at death, and that there is an eternal life. It disregards the soul, who will one day give an account before God. Patients, who seek and doctors, who administer euthanasia, both ignore the eternal consequences of their actions.

    Institutions like this force disabled and terminally ill people to define themselves purely in terms of their disability and dependence on others; and society to view them as human parasites – whose worthless lives need to be extinguished to make life more comfortable for others.

    Thank God His mercy is so great, that anyone who calls on His name, even at the very last minute, will be saved.

  • Anton

    People used to regard the executions at Tyburn as entertainment too.

  • johnb1945

    Somewhat OT but did any of you read that, due to abortion, Downs babies will no longer be born within a generation?

    This saddened me. Let’s be blunt, this is just eugenics.

    It is not our place to say whether a Downs person enjoys a fulfilled life, and, therefore, whether we should take it away on the grounds that they won’t. As Christians, of course, we believe any person, able or otherwise, may fulfil parts of other peoples’ lives which God has required be fulfilled.

    We’re also saying to large numbers of Downs people alive now that they aren’t good enough, it’s only by accident of timing that they are even alive.

    How awful.

    How about a documentary questioning this narcissistic eugenic desire for perfect babies? I hope it is not a sign that virtue signalling is now the de facto replacement for true compassion and open heartedness.