| home | sign up | news tips |

The NHS Is in a state of utter chaos.

Thousands of jobs being lost. Dozens of hospitals closing. Waiting lists that are being fiddled to look "only" 6 months long. Patients are being denied drugs like Herceptin because of the cost.

Charlotte Wyatt's RIGHT TO LIVE, who, by the way, is now very much alive and at home after her parents were told that she could not possibly survive and was thus categorised as terminally ill, came down to a question of costs as much as anything else.

I am not going to get into the debate of Euthanasia as I do not believe that is the point that needs to be made or argued, but I am going to make the point that this bill could not come at a worse time in terms of potential risk of abuse.

How long before Harold Shipman becomes a pioneering hero?

How many deaths before the first murder case arrives in court due to a small detail being "overlooked"?

Even the figures being quoted to garner public support for this law are potentially skewed beyond reason.

Consider this...

YouGov, the PLC that ran the survey, make the following statement on their web site...

"The sample for each survey is carefully selected and controlled so that it is representative of the adult population as a whole - or the specific audience that the survey is designed to measure."

REMEMBER THAT STATEMENT...IT WILL BE IMPORTANT IN A MOMENT!

Of those polled (only 1,770 people) 73% are claiming to support the law and yet 59% of those polled felt that people in the latter stages of a terminal illness were given a decent standard of care.

Which all sounds great until you read between the lines of those two statements. Firstly, did the people polled even understand the question?!??! Secondly, and more importantly, nearly HALF of those polled felt that the care given was NOT of a decent standard.

So if those 41% of people that think that the care on offer is bad were offered a system of care that they believed in, would those 41% still feel the need to have people killed instead? If so then, suddenly, only 32% agree with the law and that is less than one third!

Now consider this...

Who are the people being polled?

If they are people from every demographic then that is one thing but, as the statement above from YouGov's web site that I drew your attention to, there is no guarantee that they didn't choose people who have recently experienced or are experiencing somebody dying from a painful terminal illness. This is not an accusation. It is a simple observation but I think it is important to know, don't you?

What about this...

13% were opposed, 11% said that they did not know and 39% said they had experienced hospice or palliative care either directly or through a loved one.

What if the 27% who are either unsure or vehemently opposed to this law are ALL from the 39% that have experienced the care itself? Then the figures look totally different don't they? This would then suggest that around two-thirds of people who have experienced this type of care are at best unsure that the law is a good thing and at worst are totally opposed to it.

The opposite is also scary...As 61% of those polled have never experienced care of this type and 76% agree with the law it is possible that only 15% of those in favour of the law have ever experienced this type of care.

Do we really want to accept these results when, potentially, only 15% of those polled have a genuinely informed opinion regarding the question at hand?

I do not know the answers to any of these riddles. They are NOT figures upon which to base your decision or even have it swayed.

The figures are not conclusive, they are open to abuse and skewing and the poll that was conducted by YouGov could have been from any type of "specific audience" that they chose.

You know the drill...Right to your MP by clicking HERE and demand that the entire country is offered a referendum to show, unequivocally, what the nation wants.

They are talking about killing human beings in your country...Do you not think that EVERYBODY should have their say?

Whether you agree with that principal or not you have to understand the need to ask the nation. If the government were trying to reinstate the death penalty would the nation not demand their "say" on that? Theoretically at least, the death penalty would only be used to kill BAD people.

This potentially gives the health service the opportunity to kill "good" people too.

Friday 12th May 2006 | The Press Association

Three quarters of people are in favour of a controversial right-to-die Bill to be debated in the House of Lords, according to a new poll.

A YouGov survey for the Dignity in Dying group found that most people were in favour of the terminally ill being allowed to die.

Over half (59%) said there was good care for people in the later stages of a terminal illness, yet 76% were in favour of assisted dying as long as there were safeguards in place.

Of the 1,770 people questioned, 13% were opposed to the idea while 11% said they did not know, and 39% said they had experienced hospice or palliative care either directly or though a loved one.

The survey comes after top doctors joined opponents of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.

The Bill is sponsored by cross-bencher Lord Joffe and will have its Second Reading debate in the Lords. Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is against the Bill and is one of 81 speakers due to take part in the debate.

Religious groups have spoken out against the Bill, but the poll showed that 12% of the 34% who suggested they attended church were now less likely to attend services or donate money because of the church's stance.

Supporters of the Bill say doctors should be able to prescribe drugs that a terminally-ill person suffering terrible pain could take to end his or her own life. But a Royal College of Physicians poll has shown that 73% of its members are against any change in the law to allow physician assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Deborah Annetts, Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "The public is being massively turned off by this week's well-funded demonstration of religious opposition against a Bill they clearly support.

"This is the first time the public has been asked to assess assisted dying laws in the context of excellent palliative care. It is clear that the public truly appreciates the scope of the problem. Even with the high quality of our palliative care, some people will still want this option."