Oregon shows that assisted dying can work safely

The ‘slippery slope’ argument we so often hear has not become a reality


The first assisted dying law came into practice over eighteen years ago in the US state of Oregon after a public referendum. Since the law’s inception yearly reports have collated and published information and data which shows how the law works, and critically, highlight that a transparent law is better than the current situation we have in the UK.

The latest report shows that last year 155 people obtained life-ending medication, while 105 had an assisted death. The most recent data we have on the death rate in Oregon is from 2013 when 33,931 people died. This means that 0.3 per cent of deaths per year are assisted.

This is a small – but significant – number of people who exercised control over their imminent death. Many more people would have benefited from openly talking about this choice with their doctor (1 in 50 dying Oregonians initiate these conversations) and simply having the peace of mind of knowing it is an option if they need it will help many people with a terminal diagnosis.

This is not the case in the UK for dying Britons. Currently a person can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 14 years for assisting a loved one to die. One person a fortnight is travelling to Dignitas, choosing an assisted death earlier than they would if legal in this country.

Remarkably, British people make up the second largest nationality of patients at Dignitas after Germany, which shares a border with Switzerland. For every person who goes abroad, a further ten terminally ill people are ending their life in the UK, often alone.

Kevin Davis had lost the use of his legs as he was in the last stages of renal cancer and was found at the bottom of the stairs in a pool of blood after he had attempted to end his life. His family do not know how long he lay there, possibly alive. Crucially, we must not forget that there are many more people that are currently suffering against their wishes and will die without the choice that is their right.

If Oregon has shown assisted dying works safely for over 18 years then why hasn’t the UK changed the law already? The British public overwhelmingly support assisted dying and recently Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill won two key votes at Committee Stage – the first vote in Westminster on an assisted dying law for ten years – which showed a 2:1 majority of support in the House of Lords. Now it is looking as if the only barrier to law change is time.

But a vocal minority of opponents seem determined to stop dying people having the option of assisted dying and are now putting their own spin on the latest Oregon report. The number of assisted deaths rose 44 per cent in the last year from 73 to 105, but solely referring to this does not give an accurate picture, especially as other years have seen a drop. The percentage increase sounds dramatic but the absolute numbers involved are very low, and only 0.3 per cent of deaths in Oregon are assisted.

This hasn’t stopped Lord Carlile of Berriew drawing unfounded conclusions though. Speaking to the Catholic Herald, he said:

“I regard these as alarming figures…It suggests to me that in amongst these figures there are cases of people making the decision for assisted suicide for the wrong reasons – such as economic reasons, including the cost of private health care, draining the family assets, feeling a nuisance to their children, depression.”

There is actually no basis for these ‘suggestions’ in the report, which lists the three most common reasons for an assisted death as ‘loss of autonomy’ (91.4 per cent), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86.7 per cent) and loss of dignity (71.4 per cent).

In fact the report demonstrates that the law you enact is the law you get: the criteria for assisted dying has not been extended beyond terminal illness for the eighteen years the law has been in place, so the ‘slippery slope’ argument we so often hear has not become reality. Ultimately it is up to the dying patient to choose if they want an assisted death.

This is not the debate that the public deserve. Oregon has shown that a clear and transparent law can give dying people choice while better protecting vulnerable people.

Mickey Charouneau is press officer at Dignity in Dying. Follow him on Twittter

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

45 Responses to “Oregon shows that assisted dying can work safely”

  1. Gary Scott

    Its not an argument of logic. Like the death penalty its a moral argument. What does this do to those who have to carry out the act? What if, 30 years down the line, you, as a medical practitioner, are told to assist someone’s death. Recently we saw what happened to midwives who had asked to be excused from participating in abortions. Their request was accepted, until about two years ago. Despite taking their case to court, they lost and have to resign if they don’t wish to participate. I don’t think anyone should be stopped from terminating a pregnancy but I think we have to respect their position as they had begun their careers not having to deal with this (it wasn’t on the job spec). This will, in the fullness of time, go the same way. ‘Slippery Slope’ is easy to dismiss when you look at all the official figures. Without being flippant, no one will come back and complain, will they? Will this law extend to children? It does in Belgium. Parents can give consent to children having assisted deaths. Does this seem unsettling?

  2. Mickey Charouneau

    Hi Gary – the Assisted Dying Bill has a conscience clause which means any doctor who did not want to participate would not have to. What we’ve seen in Oregon too is a move to acceptance even from opponents, Oregon Hospice Assoc were opposed before 1997 and said in 2008 that it hadn’t negatively effected palliative care and that “none of our fears were realised.”

    On the slippery slope argument again we’ve simply got to look at where assisted dying is legal, and there has been no extension. The Netherlands and Belgium started with euthanasia laws, it wasn’t extended from dying people to non dying people.

  3. littleoddsandpieces

    Unfortunately, trusting the state with an assisted dying law is not good legislation, for those doing the premeditated institionalised homicide nor the individual nor the family.

    Already UK courts are ruling against parents who demand life support is kept on, so breaching diversity religious sensitivies of such as Islam.

    Euthanasia is cruel beyond belief as it starves and dehydrates the patient to death that can take a week or many weeks.

    Watching it without consent of either patient or family leaves a traumatic bereavement, especially with the casual indifference of those enacting the premeditated institionalised homicide.

    We already do assisted dying wtith 40,000 elderly dying early deaths from freezing to death in unheated homes with the lowest state pension of all rich nations bar poor Mexico (Source OECD).

    Pension Credit is threatened by the flat rate pension abolishing savings component and the guarantee credit for current and new pensioners being made complex and more condtitional.

    The welfare state is all but gone, with 1 million on some kind of welfare aged 60-65 equally liable for sanctions and Bedroom Tax.

    No party is offering the end to the 1 million sanctions each year, with the insufficient nearly 1 million referrals to foodbanks, that are not the free daily cafes providing free cooked hot meal and hot drink 7 days a week available in Europe, for equally to all ages, working poor, poor pensioners and unemployed.

    The first publicly acknowledged suicide of a man aged 66 due to welfare reform has happened, from a debt he did not owe a council.

    And coming in 2016 is the new pensioner with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE,
    when many benefits end at 65.

    See why under my petition, in my WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT section, at:


  4. Leon Wolfeson

    The medical professional duty one is a good point though. There needs to be a counter to that, and good luck finding one.

    Also, more importantly to me, the measures proposed in the UK simply are not strict enough, the safeguards are not written well enough.

  5. Faerieson

    The moral angle does indeed make this a most thorny issue. I have watched friends and a parent die; some fight to their last dying breath, but others welcome an end to indignity and suffering. I would be completely unable to decide for another, regardless of how close we were, but I think I could respect their wishes. I would certainly like the choice, for me, when such a time comes.

  6. Faerieson

    Recent ‘developments’ in Greece may have just brought about a great deal more of this type of unofficial ‘euthanasia.’ I will search out and add my name to your petition, but am not hopeful…

  7. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    How many organisations of disabled and terminally ill people support assisted suicide?

  8. Mickey Charouneau

    Between 70 – 80% of the public support assisted dying and the only survey to specifically ask disabled people found 79% support. I think almost all terminally ill people would like the choice to be available, even if they didn’t want to have it.

  9. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    That’s an answer to a different question. How many organisations of disabled and terminally ill people support assisted suicide? At this point I think it is plainly obvious we both know the answer to that, so I will modify the question now.

    Why has the campaign for assisted suicide not managed to convince a substantial number, let alone a majority of stakeholder-run organisations for disabled and seriously or terminally ill persons of the merits of assisted suicide?

  10. Mickey Charouneau

    But why would you concentrate on the stance of an organisation, where policy could be decided by a small number of people, but not on the fact the only independent survey to ask disabled people about assisted dying for terminally ill people (note it’s not about people living with disabilities) overwhelmingly support the principle?

    Many medical bodies are beginning to go neutral, such as the Royal College of Nursing, and political parties are also allowing a free vote on the issue. There is a wide range of opinions on this issue and this should be reflected in the disability organisation’s stance.

  11. ForeignRedTory

    ‘On the slippery slope argument again we’ve simply got to look at where
    assisted dying is legal, and there has been no extension. The
    Netherlands and Belgium started with euthanasia laws, it wasn’t extended
    from dying people to non dying people.’

    You call extending euthanasia – as in Belgium and the Netherlands – to include the death of people who never asked for it ( e.g. children, mentally handicapped ) no extension?

    No thanks! down with legalisation of Euthanasia.

  12. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    You’re leveraging the use of ‘overwhelming’ on a number, not on any action beyond stating a preference. Organisations matter because they consist of people pro-actively doing things to further the rights of disabled people(of which you draw a clear dividing line for some reason). After many years, Dignity In Dying has failed to convince disability rights organisations led by disabled people to include assisted suicide among those rights considered necessary for parity with society.

    This is the second time you have evaded a question from me, unless I’m to take your answer as being that organisations of disabled people don’t matter because the majority of non-involved disabled people share the same perspective as the rest of the public. In this case the ends always justify the means and engaging with disability organisations in opposition to Dignity In Dying can attract publicity for them that is more problematic than when religious organisation spokespersons are wheeled out to be pantomime villains. Feel free to answer the questions any time: How many disability organisations have been persuaded to support or include assisted suicide as an important right for people to have? Why has DiD not managed to convince more than that number(approximately zero)?

  13. Mickey Charouneau

    What question i am evading? You’ve already answered your own question. Scope are opposed to assisted dying.

    I don’t see why an organisation’s stance completely wipes out the fact the most recent survey (2013) found 79% of disabled people support assisted dying, while the last British Social Attitudes found 75% support in 2007. Surely ‘stating a preference’ is valid.

    Are you saying that even though 70-80% of the public support assisted dying, including majority of people with disabilities, because Scope are opposed then we shouldn’t have an assisted dying law? That seems slightly flawed.

    It must also be pointed out that a change in the law on assisted dying would not legalise assistance to die based on disability. It would give dying people control over their own death.

  14. Mickey Charouneau

    I’m not in support of euthanasia. I’m in support of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent people. Every jurisdiction which has legalised assisted dying has seen no extension – there is no slippery slope for assisted dying.

  15. Mickey Charouneau

    What safeguards would you like to see in the Assisted Dying Bill? Currently a person has to be evaluated by two independent doctors so ascertain that they have a prognosis of 6 months or less, and that they are mentally competent making a settled intention of their own free will. There is a ‘cooling off’ period of 14 days for the patient to reflect on their choice. Also a patient would not have the life-ending medication with them until the day they chose to die, it is then transported by a healthcare professional, and if the person decides they do not want to take it (which they have to self administer) then the life-ending medication is taken back to a secure facility. After the first day of Committee Stage the Bill was amended to include judicial oversight, to make sure all steps are taken.

  16. treborc1

    We are not the USA and with everything now happening and the cost of our NHS I would not trust two doctors not to decide my life is unworthy so get rid of him .

    No sorry the simple fact I’ve seen doctors help people to die they did with my father and we had to sigh to agree with giving my father a double dose of morphine. I watched the doctor not the nurse give it, before he gave it he said you know what this means and I said yes . he said are you sure and I looked at my old man laying in bed struggling to breath unconscious and I said yes . he was 88 years of age his heart was twice the size and he had been in hospital fighting for three months.

    But I’ve regretted it ever since..

  17. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    I didn’t bring Scope into this, you did. The question has been put to you very clearly: why is it that Dignity in Dying has failed to convince organisations that campaign for rights for people who often are at risk of becoming terminal to consider assisted suicide to be an important right to have? I’m asking you questions I already suspect the answers to because your organisation is treated very gently by the media and balanced only by an easily dismissed religious opposition. I want to know if Dignity in Dying can argue the principle of assisted suicide on its own merits, without resorting to ad populism.

  18. Leon Wolfeson

    On the medical professional side, on reflection, a clear delineation that the bill is outside of NHS duties.

    On the safeguard side, a dual system of legal and medical which would both have to be followed. I note that the proposed system would in fact not deal with most of the high-profile cases and if this law had been settled, then in at least one case murder charges would have been mandatory.

  19. Mickey Charouneau

    Dignity in Dying doesn’t campaign for assisted suicide, we campaign for assisted dying.

    You need to ask the disability rights groups why, seeing as they appear to be ignoring the majority views of people with disabilities who support the Bill.

    We don’t really have religious opponents, one of our biggest supporters is former Archbishop George Carey, and majority of people with faith support assisted dying. Majority of opposition comes from some people with disabilities.

    I feel we’re going round in circles, what was your response to the evidence in Oregon?

  20. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    That disabled people are revealed to share pretty much the same perspective as the general population is not a revelation. It’s not a homogenous group and people will hold the same prejudices for conditions they don’t have which are also held by people without any disability or illness. You don’t have the support of *any* organisation of disabled people because the only ‘right’ you are interested in is one which contradicts in principle the social model that is the basis of rights that disabled and chronically ill people have actually fought for.

    You will go around in circles for as long as ‘its popular therefore its right’ is all you have to speak as a case and can’t get assisted suicide to stand on it’s own merits. I call it that because assisted dying is euthanasia, which is illegal and should always be illegal.

  21. Mickey Charouneau

    Assisted dying, assisted suicide and euthanasia are all different. I’m beginning to think you haven’t read the article if you think the ‘popular’ argument is the only one I have.

  22. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    I think it’s the only one you have because it’s the only one you’ve used. Simply arguing against one point as you do above against the slippery slope is not an argument in favour of assisted suicide.

    I am well aware that assisted dying and assisted suicide are different- that was my point. But euthanasia is not; it is precisely the same as assisted dying. Dying is not something you do like suicide is, it’s something that happens to you. One has agency, the other does not and is why it is wrong when it comes as a decision in the hands of others. Assisted dying is euthanasia by stealth and is indefensible. Assisted suicide is more of a blurred line where the property of person, genuinely hard choices and deep suffering mesh with each other to thwart any easy answer. So no wonder Dignity in Dying wants to fudge words.

  23. Mickey Charouneau

    The only one? Here’s something which is not against the slippery slope but merely highlighting the current situation:

    This from the article:
    One person a fortnight is travelling to Dignitas, choosing an assisted death earlier than they would if legal in this country. Remarkably, British people make up the second largest nationality of patients at Dignitas after Germany, which shares a border with Switzerland. For every person who goes abroad, a further ten terminally ill people are ending their life in the UK, often alone.

    Kevin Davis had lost the use of his legs as he was in the last stages of renal cancer and was found at the bottom of the stairs in a pool of blood after he had attempted to end his life. His family do not know how long he lay there, possibly alive. Crucially, we must not forget that there are many more people that are currently suffering against their wishes and will die without the choice that is their right.

  24. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    Where’s the argument? The point you are advancing? That might be something good for attention-grabbing in the media, but there’s no impression made on formal argument at all. I don’t want rights to be decided by harrowing emotional tales, but by sober and measured reasoning taking in the widest, not narrowest and zoomed-in perspective.

  25. Mason Dixon, Autistic

    Where’s the argument? The point you are advancing? That might be something good for attention-grabbing in the media, but there’s no impression made on formal argument at all. I don’t want rights to be decided by harrowing emotional tales, but by sober and measured reasoning taking in the widest, not narrowest and zoomed-in perspective.

  26. Sionnan_Eilis

    As a member of the NHS, I personally would theorise that many would know from every single day of their working lives that death is simply a natural part of life. We ALL die. Healthcare professionals deal with death every day. Patients do not get choice every damn day…THAT is more of an issue!

  27. Leon Wolfeson

    So you see no issue in something which could be used to impose essentially an ideological requirement on doctors in the NHS.

  28. Sionnan_Eilis

    By definition, everything a healthcare professional (HCP) is expected to do may cause issues with any ideology. We are neutral. We treat people of different races, cultures, backgrounds, classes, citizen and criminal and racist or bigot. Every patient is to be treated equally no matter what the HCP may personally feel is right or wrong. The patient getting the best treatment and being involved in the decisions made about their own care is the only thing that counts. If death is correctly seen as natural and normal and not a scary taboo thing, how a person is treated as they die should be exactly the same. Best practice, appropriate, patient centered. No-one is forced to train to become a HCP. The notion that midwives who initially did not train to have to deal with certain aspects of care of the mother, such as abortions should be absolved from doing so is beyond ridiculous. All HCPs know training is a lifelong thing. We constantly update mandatory training to include new practice and we develop professionally as our roles continuously expand in direct correlation to medical advances and public expectations. My role is very different and more clinical than when I trained. I do the best I can for every patient, every day. I watch people who deal with the lack of an assisted dying bill every day. There is a need for it.

  29. Leon Wolfeson

    So you *are* demanding a wholesale purge of the medical profession. Well, fine, but of course the shortage of doctors you’re after also has an impact and you don’t seem to have considered that.

    Not every doctor, of course, subscribes to exactly the same bioethics, and there is a healthy debate on the topic. PAS is against the Declaration of Geneva as sworn by a not-inconsiderable number of doctors (” health and life of my patient”), for instance (at least outside America, where “life” is often removed), and you should know WHY it’s so, too, if you really are knowledgeable on this.

  30. Sionnan_Eilis

    I’m not sure what qualifies you to assume i am demanding anything at all from my posts, let alone a purge of doctors? I deliberately did not specify doctors, nurses or any other specific role but stuck with HCP.

  31. Leon Wolfeson

    Because it’s happened that way with midwives, as noted above. It’s exacerbated a shortage. (And people with certain beliefs are not going to enter the profession in the UK now, as only the NHS trains…)

    Doctors are the medical professionals who would be struck off under your plan here.

    Placing it *explicitly* outside the scope of the NHS, because there is a clear moral debate and a significant proportion of doctors would rather give up their licence than be forced to be involved…

  32. Guest

    “Every jurisdiction which has legalised assisted dying has seen no extension”

    Factually incorrect. Belgium expanded on their 2002 bill in 2006.

  33. Sionnan_Eilis

    There you go again with your assumptions and accusations as to my personal beliefs and wishes. Perhaps we could try and keep this to a healthy debate similar to the one you mention above? Firstly, to clarify, Midwives and nurse are entirely different professionals in different roles with different training, so no…the example mentioned above does not apply to nurses. Secondly, doctors are expected to perform all manner of procedures that some may not personally agree with. As with all other HCPs, they are expected to fulfill the role they train for and apply for, they do not get to cherry pick which aspects of the role they agree with, so yes, if it becomes part of their role and some do not agree, they may choose as they will. Are you suggesting a doctors choice of career pathway should take priority over the possibility of a dying patient having control over the manner of their death? Placing assisted dying outside of the NHS runs the risk that it will be unaccessible to many who need it. This should not be a law for the wealthy to have a choice and the poor to suffer, it should be NHS led in order for equality of access and to be free at the point of need.

  34. Leon Wolfeson

    No, I am talking about what you have repeatedly said you favour. You are frantically fighting for ending the debate here, trying to reject the clear consequences of what you are calling for.

    If you are a medical professional, then I feel for the patients who have to suffer under your type of poorly-considered “care”.

    Your cavaliar dismissal of any ethical issues and your demand that all NHS doctors conform to a single standard really shows your agenda here – what else is on it, because I’m sure there are plenty of other things with which I disagree.

    You try and bring up a chimera, for which charity support would exist, to justify your determination to purge large numbers of doctors as ideologically unacceptable to the NHS.

    That’s all there is to it. Your ideal NHS, run along your personal moral lines and with only the medical staff who completely agree with your exact bioethics. That’s 60% of doctors gone on this one issue alone, and certainly far more on other issues.

    But hey, I’m sure the of doctors who quit would be heavily involved in the system which would end up replacing the utterly insufficient NHS, shame about the principles of “equality of access” and “free at point of need” which you are in practice strongly opposing.

    Your pure and ideal NHS, a tattered remnant – the Tories would be proud.

  35. Guest

    Oh, and you’re clearly not familiar with the issues and the Declaration of Geneva, so I have absolutely no reason to believe you’re any kind of medical professional – any such speaking on this would understand what I said and have addressed it, because it’s critical to understanding why so many Doctors oppose involvement in any form of deliberate termination of life.

  36. Sionnan_Eilis

    Oh get a grip, seriously. I have not claimed to be a doctor, nor am I. I have not claimed my personal beliefs to be above all others, nor do I believe them to be so. I have not at ANY point discussed my ideal NHS nor my morality. Im loving your ability to conjure stuff up, its almost as good as your referencing for the well quantified ‘large numbers’ of doctors that will be purged by my chimera. The rest of your argument regards equality of access and free at the point of need seems to have you tying yourself in knots, you aren’t even making sense. I am an HCP working with palliative patients every day. I know the PATIENT’S end of it. Do you? Have you thought about them AT ALL when ranting and accusing? Try.

  37. Mickey Charouneau

    Hello, Belgium had a euthanasia law with the criteria of intolerable suffering from the outset.

    Assisted dying (for terminally ill, mentally competent people only) has never been extended beyond terminal illness. Exists in Oregon (1997), Washington (2009) and Vermont (2013).

  38. Guest

    Oh yes, I must “grip” your ideology and follow it slaveishly. You have demanded that your ideology be imposed on the NHS, as you twist my words again – I said medical professional and I meant medical professional.

    I am not conjutring anything – again, your simple lack of background here with things like the Declaration of Geneva really lets you down, as you claim that you want to lock me up or whatever for using simply facts – your NHS, shorn of much of it’s staff, would not uphold the values you evidently in practice oppose.

    And yes, I’m very sorry for the patients – if they exist – who you are working on. Words chosen deliberately. The ranting is yours, your opposition to all those who won’t embrace your precise bioethics, with no room for any kind of debate…

  39. Guest

    You were incorrect. Those Goalposts, they don’t move themselves.

  40. Sionnan_Eilis

    Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I am not demanding my anything be imposed on anyone, I am simply opposing your apparent opinion that a law for assisted dying would definitively lead to NHS professionals being forced to euthanise patients. Assisted dying as discussed in this bill suggests the patient will self administer, not any HCP. Such bills have passed into law in other areas without being changed to anything dire after the passage of years.

    I have also not at any point insisted you follow my thinking, you are entitled to your point of view even if I don’t agree with it and even if you don’t think anyone else is entitled to their own. Bizarre seeing as you mentioned healthy debate earlier that you don’t recognise reasoned argument of others or your own ranting.

    I have read through my own posts again as I could not believe I would have stated anything so out of character as to a claim that I want to lock you up which you have stated above. I have categorically not stated that at any point. So yes, you ARE making things up or your perception is beyond flawed which places doubt on any reasoning skills you think you may have.

    Furthermore, as I have stated I am not a doctor, I have no dealings with the Declaration of Geneva personally but will just quote this line ‘I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life’. Respect for human life, alonside an understanding that death is a natural part of that would require respect for the dying patient to have such choice over the manner of their own death.

    As for your previous point that I ‘demand that all NHS doctors conform to a single standard’, yes I damned well do. All doctors are required to do exactly that as are all HCPs. All doctors take the same oath and any personal beliefs should not interfere with their ability to do the job they trained for. If they cannot adhere to the high standards they should not taint the oath.

    I will clarify my point one last time as I really am tired of you and your inability to see the point of this post or this bill. The Patient’s are the point. It is about their choices and rights. I personally have never met a doctor, nurse, midwife, physio etc who did not put the needs of their patient first without thought to their own personal beliefs. It’s why we do the job. It’s disappointing that your argument against this bill is your concern for sensitive doctors whom you believe may 30 years down the line, if the law changes, be required to actually put the patient first. I sincerely hope you are not a doctor, and never become the patient who needs this bill.

  41. Guest

    Oh yes, of course you demand I not read your screed. You’re not demanding…oh, you’re actively Crusading already for your cause, I see. You are denying what has factually occured with midwives, trying to cynically lie for your anti-NHS campaign.

    You completely ignore what others say as you utterly ignore the moral issues and demand that your standard rule, as you lie about “other bills”, as you try and blame me for your intolerance of other standard of bioethics. That you think suppression and mass firings are good “debate” really shows what you’re for, as you defend what amounts to Eugenics, because there’s no way you’d stop at this of course.

    You’re not a doctor, YOU wouldn’t have to do anything but sit back an collect the money from your sponsors for this campaign. That you don’t understand the Declaration of Geneva and why it so offends the far right backers of yours is the critical point here.

    You then admit that you wlll try and fire most NHS doctors. As you then make up nonsense lies about them taking the same oath, and by your Oath to Money (which apparently you’ve taken) you accuse them of “tarnishing” themselves if they don’t hold your anti-life views.

    Your hatred of the patients is indeed the point. You want no NHS, right, as confirmed by your blind repeated demands for smashing the NHS while frantically making excuses and ignoring the ethical issues. You make up nonsense like “30 years down the line”, when it’d take a few years for your backers to basically kill the NHS if you hot your way.

    And I need murdering? Well well. I am Jewish, after all.

  42. Sionnan_Eilis

    Wow! Are you actually reading my posts or something else entirely. ALL of your points above, ALL of your accusations are completely untrue and the proof is there for all to see. You sound a bit scary and borderline psychopathic. ‘Nuff said.

  43. Guest

    I’m reading your fanatical defence of your own brand of bioethics as a way to purge to the NHS. You keep saying that facts are untrue, and that your hatred is not on display.

    Of course you see me, as Jewish, as “a bit scary and borderline psychopathic” – there’s a reason you so virulently reject the Declaration of Geneva, passed to stop the Nazi abuse of the medical profession from happening again.

    Which you didn’t know about – you’re an outsider to the issue, here to end the NHS and introduce your far-out bioethics on the medical profession.

  44. Sionnan_Eilis

    Since you clearly don’t actually need my input here at all, perferring to make up whatever you choose, like accusing me of being anti semetic which I am not…how could I be when I did not know you were Jewish until you accused me of such?….I’m going to leave you to play on your own now. Interesting to see that as you get more ridiculous, you remove your name, Leon Wolfeson, and appear only as Guest.

  45. Guest

    Ah, you’re Lord Blagger.

    Keep trying to hide your agenda. One day pensions, the next the NHS. Your pretend-ignorance is offensive, of course.

    You go rip off more British people now, as you oppose the Declaration of Geneva…

Leave a Reply