Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Euthanasia: The Doctors Survey. [NZ.]

Below is my letter to the editor sent today to the Christchurch Press, in response to a letter published from Ken Orr (advocate for the Catholic run Right for Life lobby; writing against euthanasia, abortion, and thus an individual’s right to own their life - because God does).

If I choose euthanasia, that is between me, my family, and a compassionate doctor; it is no business of the meddling Ken Orr and his medieval faith which preaches the insanity of suffering as religious observance. Given euthanasia is voluntary, I fail to understand why those against it deserve a say in this debate: they can die unaided. The position against euthanasia by NZMA is unethical and negligent, because they yet allow it as ethical to administer a pain remediation regime that ‘may hasten death’. What does that mean? In that contradiction the one in ten doctors who have conceded to (mercifully) facilitating a euthanasia, are having to risk ‘everything’ in aiding those whose lives have become intolerable to them. We need euthanasia legislation to put this finally above board, and have an individual’s inalienable right to die with dignity, and an ethical service for that, conjoined.

Also, a question for the New Zealand Medical Association. When your UK counterpart polled its members, it was voted in the majority that euthanasia was a question to be decided by society, not the doctor members of UKMA, and that should be recognised in the debate. Why will the NZMA not poll its members on this matter? The evidence from this recent doctor survey clearly shows the NZMA does not speak for all of its members, perhaps not even a majority of them.

1 comment:

  1. Nice to see you posting again.

    Your letter is probably just as pointless as, I suspect, Ken Orr's was. It may make you feel good to rage against the machine but that doesn't progress things.

    When this matter is debated by parliament Ken Orr's views will be ignored just as his views on abortion, gay marriage and everything else he sees as moral are. In a secular system that seems appropriate - there is no authority above that which we decide to allow by way of legislation and medieval Christians simply have no say, let alone influence, in 2015. I'm confident you will get your own way eventually so start nagging the secular politicians who seem to be dragging their heels.