Rosary-chanting protesters force euthanasia talk to be abandoned

Nodin

ThePoxyIndo wrote:

CONTROVERSIAL euthanasia lecture was abandoned amid chaotic scenes last night while a senior British medical ethics expert had a private security escort for his own protection.
Prof Len Doyal was visibly shaken after his lecture on euthanasia couldn't even commence after he was heckled and jeered by more than 20 angry pro-life protesters who had taken up position in the Cork University Hospital (CUH) lecture theatre.
Protesters, some from the right-wing Youth Defence group, shouted that euthanasia was State-sponsored murder -- and dozens began loudly chanting the Rosary.
At one point, a protester shouted abuse directly into Prof Doyal's face. All efforts to introduce Prof Doyal for his lecture were drowned out by shouts and jeers.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rosarychanting-protesters-force-euthanasia-talk-to-be-abandoned-1705229.html

I see that particular shower of gobshites haven't gone away....now they're fighting for the right of the born to die badly.

velocirafter

It's absoultely ridiculous, I have no particular opinion on euthenasia, to be honest I havent given it proper thought but there is no harm in having a lecture on the topic. Maybe these protesters could have attended the lecture and asked some testing questions instead of throwing the toys out of the pram and shouting him down

MrJoeSoap

I'd like to see a video of this. Once again, a good example of people letting religion get in the way of common sense, decency and compassion for fellow humans.

PS - Why ThePoxyIndo?

Borneo Fnctn

They have a right to protest against euthanasia, but they certainly didn't help their case by chanting the rosary and intimidating people. They've made themselves look like right wing christian zealots.

Mena

I'm wondering why anyone would be intimidated by a tiny crowd of 20 zealots. Surely they could have ignored them and gone ahead with the lecture? If they were making that much noise, why not have them removed by security?

the_syco

Mena wrote: »

If they were making that much noise, why not have them removed by security?

I doubt there'd be enough security to get rid of 20 scumbags, who are doing a cordinated attack on one person.

Nodin

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

PS - Why ThePoxyIndo?

......because thats what I call the Indo, when not calling it the "Blueshirt". Couldn't find a mention on the Times so I had to use it.

Mena

the_syco wrote: »

I doubt there'd be enough security to get rid of 20 scumbags, who are doing a cordinated attack on one person.

Well I cant speak for CUH at all but we always had plenty of security available when we hosted "controversial" lectures. It smacks of bad planning, but then, I don't have all the facts.

MrJoeSoap

Nodin wrote: »

......because thats what I call the Indo, when not calling it the "Blueshirt". Couldn't find a mention on the Times so I had to use it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0410/1224244363098.html

A SPEECH by a proponent of euthanasia was called off at Cork University Hospital (CUH) yesterday after protesters voiced their opposition.

Prof Len Doyal, a supporter of euthanasia and emeritus professor of medical ethics at the London School of Medicine and Dentistry and St Bartholomew’s Hospital, was due to address an audience at CUH as part of a lecture series organised by the hospital’s ethics committee.

More than 100 protesters lined the entrance to the hospital and the auditorium as part of a peaceful demonstration against the content of the lecture.

Ethics committee chairman Prof Eamonn Quigley introduced Prof Doyal, but was interrupted by a protester who approached the podium and demanded the lecture be halted, branding the content “murderous”. The lecture was promptly cancelled and Prof Doyal was escorted from the auditorium by hospital security personnel.

Speaking to The Irish Times , last night, Prof Doyal described the experience as “disturbing and distressing”.

He said: “There was no intent on my part to give a lecture and leave, the whole point was that it should be a debate . . . with people free to disagree with me as part of a discussion . . .What is most disturbing is what this means for free speech, which is also upheld in your constitution.”

Health Service Executive (HSE) spokeswoman Christine Eckersley said the lecture was cancelled in the interests of public safety. However, protesters denied there was any threat to public safety.

“The HSE will make us out to be religious zealots but we are not. We are all individual protesters here,” said anti-euthanasia protester Margaret Hurley, from Bishopstown in Cork.

Outside the hospital entrance, protester Moira O’Regan, from Cork, said she was present as a voice for elderly people: “This lecture has nothing to do with providing care for people.”

A spokeswoman for the HSE said: “The hospital fully appreciates that this is a very sensitive topic for many groups and individuals and is aware of the potential for misunderstanding which the title of the lecture may convey, but would again categorically state that CUH does not support euthanasia.”

PDN

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

The tactics mentioned in that article certainly isn't a way I would choose to behave - but its been done a thousand times before for anti-apartheid, gay rights, Brits out, anti G-20, etc, etc. etc.

As a taxpayer I don't see why a publicly funded institution should be giving a platform to somebody advocating acts that are illegal. Our Constitution grants free speech, and that applies equally to Professor Doyal or Fred Phelps, but I would prefer them to use privately funded venues and facilities.

Mena

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

Since I used the "zealots" line, I'm sure you're referring to me. You'll be happy to know that I call these other protesters zealots as well. Hippies the lot of them

Dades

Anyone hear the soundbytes of the protesters on NewsTalk? All thou shalt not kill... it's murder... I believe in God... etc.

One particular tool asked something like "would you pass a law allowing violence??"...

I mean wtf?! Mind your own frickin' business.

Mena

Dades wrote: »

Anyone hear the soundbytes of the protesters on NewsTalk? All thou shalt not kill... it's murder... I believe in God... etc.

One particular tool asked something like "would you pass a law allowing violence??"...

I mean wtf?! Mind your own frickin' business.

One wonders if they actually understand what Euthanasia is, or are they confusing it with abortion or capital punishment or some such...

MG

It's gettin more like the 1980s by the day

velocirafter

Mena wrote: »

One wonders if they actually understand what Euthanasia is, or are they confusing it with abortion or capital punishment or some such...

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

conlonbmw

I heard the women on the radio quoting "thou shall not kill", how f*ckin stupid are religous people?. I cannot understand how you can believe in something that is fiction that stemmed from superstition and contradicts itself at every turn.

How many people have been murdered in religions name, or directly by the church itself.

They are F*cking Imbecciles.

Regardless of their religious or moral beliefs, they can protest all they want but they shouldn't be preventing a lecture on the subject going ahead. And asking intelligent questions/discussion/debate.

stevejazzx

velocirafter wrote: »

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

It's hardly surprising that people who believe in invisible things get confused from time to time:)

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that people who believe in invisible things get confused from time to time:)

Change the record.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.
The tactics mentioned in that article certainly isn't a way I would choose to behave - but its been done a thousand times before for anti-apartheid, gay rights, Brits out, anti G-20, etc, etc. etc.

You see what you are doing here don't you? You seem to be insinuating that posters here agree with the curbing of free speech when it agrees with their point of view but criticise it when it doesn't.
I see no poster here that stated that. But it doesn't stop you throwing it up there & then shooting it down. I'm afraid you're only arguing with yourself.

PDN wrote: »

As a taxpayer I don't see why a publicly funded institution should be giving a platform to somebody advocating acts that are illegal. Our Constitution grants free speech, and that applies equally to Professor Doyal or Fred Phelps, but I would prefer them to use privately funded venues and facilities.

By your logic we should never discuss anything that is currently illegal in a public forum. There have been many discussions about the legalisation of drugs for example. How would any laws be changed if its not discussed while its still illegal

Dades

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

I respect their right to free speech as much as I respect the right to claim their views are archaic and interfering.

And I wouldn't call them scumbags, but are you suggesting they aren't zealots?

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Change the record.

Don't smilely faces count for anything anymore?

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

Don't smilely faces count for anything anymore?

After seeing countless variations of the same joke I'm going to say, no, they don't.

Woger

velocirafter wrote: »

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

Both you are so smug, lying in a hospital bed for years with zero brain activity or in crippling pain is a sign of love and compassion. That's why Brendan Smyth had a quick death.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After seeing countless variations of the same joke I'm going to say, no, they don't.

Fair enough.
On topic
It is very sad to see this kind of thing. I just heard the news with, who I imagine is the same woman alreay mentioned, shouting about murder. It just beggers belief how and why some poeple achieve this great big mixing up of ideas in thier heads - sad and in this case very annoying too.

Galvasean

On the topic of free speech, the protesters should have listened to what the speaker had to say, then challenged his views in a civil manner. Instead they tried the old 'he who shouts the loudest wins the debate' trick, making them look quite foolish.
If they know they're right they should be able to win an open debate.

velocirafter

The thing is they we're just anti euthenasia they were anti euthenasia debates aswell. I hope none of these people have any authority in their lives, the idea that you are not even allowed discuss a topic that you are not in favour of is repulsive

Borneo Fnctn

Bduffman wrote: »

You see what you are doing here don't you? You seem to be insinuating that posters here agree with the curbing of free speech when it agrees with their point of view but criticise it when it doesn't.
I see no poster here that stated that. But it doesn't stop you throwing it up there & then shooting it down. I'm afraid you're only arguing with yourself.

[/I]

+1

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

If they know they're right they should be able to win an open debate.

Well, while I agree that they should have conducted themselves in a more 'civilised' and mature manner, it isn't accurate to say that what is right (assuming there is such thing in a debate like this) will always win out in an open debate.

conlonbmw

bluewolf wrote: »

Regardless of their religious or moral beliefs, they can protest all they want but they shouldn't be preventing a lecture on the subject going ahead. And asking intelligent questions/discussion/debate.

Correct.

I am always amazed that church spokesman are allowed an opinion on anything that is based in fact.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

it isn't accurate to say that what is right (assuming there is such thing in a debate like this) will always win out in an open debate.

Actually you're right. That is true.
Still, yelling down you opponent is a bad tactic, unless you're on the O' Reilly Factor.

condra

^ I agree.

I don't really care what their opinions are, but shouting over people is for ignorant thugs.

This is a democracy. They can debate killing disabled people or legalising rape as far as I care. (crude examples perhaps) Discussion and debate is healthy.

Long live David Norris.

I hope Len Doyal is invited back and has an oppurtunity to speak in Dublin, to a larger audience.

I would like to thank them for raising the issue of Euthanasia though. It is something people don't give enough thought to, and now, thanks to them, the country knows that a largescale public discussion on the devisive matter is necessary.

thebigcheese22

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/idsnauauey/

'ORGANISERS of a controversial HSE euthanasia lecture were forced to leave surrounded by security just seconds into the high-profile debate, after a barrage of verbal threats from protesters accusing them of taking "30 pieces of silver" to endorse "murder".

The ‘Why euthanasia should be legalised’ public lecture by Prof Len Doyal, an international advocate of the issue and emeritus professor of medical ethics at the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, was due to begin at 5pm yesterday in the main auditorium of Cork University Hospital (CUH).

But just 20 seconds into the opening address by the hospital’s ethics forum chair Prof Eamon Quigley, the lecture — which was not based on any future policy changes — descended into a farce.

To calls of "murder is murder", "this is how Hitler started", Hail Mary prayers, and calls that "only God has the right to take a life", up to 50 protesters repeatedly verbally threatened Prof Quigley and other organisers, forcing the chair of the lecture to call for security seconds into his address.

Three security staff subsequently entered the room in an attempt to quell the abuse. Despite their presence the insults continued for more than 20 minutes, at one stage leading to a personal verbal attack on stem cell advocate Prof Deirdre Madden who was forced to leave her seat in the crowd.

Moments before gardaí arrived, one protester took over the podium to accuse CUH of selling out the "sick and old" people of Ireland.

"I have 30 pieces of silver to give to the ethics committee on behalf of these people. That’s very significant because Judas took 30 pieces of silver. They are selling out the sick and the old, and what I would say is that this ethics committee has no ethics at all. Who would hold a meeting on Holy Thursday in Catholic Ireland to murder people?" he said.'


This basically sums up why I'm an atheist, these idiots have no respect for freedom of speech, unless when it suits them. Never mind if your in favour or against euthanasia, what is the harm in having an open talk about it???

Galvasean

Join the line.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055535328


edit: merge has made Galvasean's words of wisdom/Clint Eastwood reference look foolish...

PDN

Well if they did it twice then that is really overstepping the boundaries of free speech!

Taltos

I have always found the religous to be very tolerant folk, until that is you contradict them.
Just waiting for all the hate to hit your thread though.

Please recall all the lovely examples they have given and continue to give us:
> Creationalism in the US; Hitler; Purges of the middleages; Rushdie; 9-11; Aliens attacking that windfarm in anger at everyone laughing at poor T Cruise

Funny how it is all prompted by "zealots" - just the guys the faiths brainwash a bit too far.

jhegarty

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Euthanasia talk gatecrashed by religious nuts......
The ‘Why euthanasia should be legalised’ public lecture by....

How does one gatecrash a public meeting ?

a&a crashed by illiterates!

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually you're right. That is true.
Still, yelling down you opponent is a bad tactic, unless you're on the O' Reilly Factor.

Totally agree, especially with the part where you said I was right.

CDfm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/idsnauauey/


"I have 30 pieces of silver to give to the ethics committee on behalf of these people. That’s very significant because Judas took 30 pieces of silver. They are selling out the sick and the old, and what I would say is that this ethics committee has no ethics at all. Who would hold a meeting on Holy Thursday in Catholic Ireland to murder people?" he said.'


This basically sums up why I'm an atheist, these idiots have no respect for freedom of speech, unless when it suits them. Never mind if your in favour or against euthanasia, what is the harm in having an open talk about it???

Do you mind me asking if you are pro or anti euthenasia and how do you feel about assisted suicide?

My own view is that certain drugs used for theraputic or palatative care may hasten death but that is not the objective of their use its to make the dying more comfortable or switching of life support when a person is brain dead. So thats one side of the line - its when it crosses that line that I have an issue.

The assisted suicide in Ireland a few years back of a woman by 2 US based advocates crossed the line and what they did was criminal.I would also disagree with the Swiss based group Digitas??( I hope I have the name right) who are involved in this area.

PDN wrote: »

Well if they did it twice then that is really overstepping the boundaries of free speech!

The same question for you PDN.

Galvasean wrote: »

Join the line.

Ditto

Nodin

Merge?

conlonbmw

Not to worry, the church will eventually change.

Remember in the good old days when people would bow to the pae priest and kiss his ring.

No meat on Fridays.

Women covered their hair.

Lent was an event.

Heathens were burned or murdered some other way.

Stupid ignorant uneducated people were no challenge to the lying scumbags in the church.

Religion cannot change ever, its dogmatic views make it impossible to change because change would suggest infallibilty .... BOOM:D

Dades

Nodin wrote: »

Merge?

Two threads merged...

In case anyone's wondering about posts appearing in places.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

As a taxpayer I don't see why a publicly funded institution should be giving a platform to somebody advocating acts that are illegal.

And what bright spark thought it would be comforting for the patients or their relatives at Cork University Hospital to have this Euthenasia debate and protest going on outside. Let alone sponsoring the debate.

I know its a side issue but people going to hospital generaly do so with the hope of coming out again and this kind of stuff would be really scary.

You dont have to be a Christian to see that.

thebigcheese22

CDfm wrote: »

And what bright spark thought it would be comforting for the patients or their relatives at Cork University Hospital to have this Euthenasia debate and protest going on outside. Let alone sponsoring the debate.

And the group of 40 or so heckling an elderly gentleman would have reassured patients in the hospital? Please :rolleyes:


And as for your previous question ,yes I am pro euthanasia if a terminal disease is so excruciatingly painful in a person's final days, that every minute of life is hell. Every human has a right to life, but also has the right the die with dignity if they want.

That debate on euthanasia is a red herring tho, this is about a radical religious organisation disrupting a public meeting, and terrifying a person invited to give a talk. That is not justifiable, and even people against euthanasia can see that.


Also, when was the last time you saw a group of radical atheists disturbing a religious debate? I think you will be waiting a long time for that one.

PDN

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Also, when was the last time you saw a group of radical atheists disturbing a religious debate? I think you will be waiting a long time for that one.

It's hardly a parallel, since this was not a case of religious people disturbing an atheist debate, was it?

condra

Close enough PDN.

Anyway, (nothing to do with PDN...) I find it pretty shocking how some religious people will stick together to defend "their own" sometimes.
If and when fundamental atheists do questionable/thuggish stuff, you can bet your left nut that atheists will be among the first to condemn it.

How anyone, (religious or otherwise) can defend the actions of these thugs is beyond me.

Euthanasia is a big issue, and big issues need to be discussed in a healthy democracy.

PDN

womoma wrote: »

Close enough PDN.

I find it pretty shocking how some religious people will stick together to defend "their own" sometimes.

If and when fundamental atheists do questionable/thuggish stuff, you can bet your left nut that atheists will be among the first to condemn it.

How anyone, (religious or otherwise) can defend the actions of these thugs is beyond me.

Euthanasia is a big issue, and big issues need to be discussed in a healthy democracy.

I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't defended these people at all.

Mena

womoma wrote: »

Euthanasia is a big issue, and big issues need to be discussed in a healthy democracy.

So you're saying we shouldn't discuss euthanasia in Ireland then? :pac:

CDfm

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

And the group of 40 or so heckling an elderly gentleman would have reassured patients in the hospital? Please :rolleyes:

It was an HSE event

And as for your previous question ,yes I am pro euthanasia if a terminal disease is so excruciatingly painful in a person's final days, that every minute of life is hell. Every human has a right to life, but also has the right the die with dignity if they want.

But what is your definition - there is a bit of a distinction between medication hastening death and making a patient comfortable and medication causing death and that is a very fine line(and which is illegal)

That debate on euthanasia is a red herring tho, this is about a radical religious organisation disrupting a public meeting, and terrifying a person invited to give a talk. That is not justifiable, and even people against euthanasia can see that.

Was there an organisation involved?

But really this isn't solely a religious issue its an ethical issue and crosses boundaries. I am with PDN here its not exclusive to religion.

Also, when was the last time you saw a group of radical atheists disturbing a religious debate? I think you will be waiting a long time for that one.

AS above. Its an ethical issue.

Anyone who knows Cork will know that the Hospital is very close to a residential area in the suburbs which is fairly middle class. Its hardly a hotbed of radical groups and the people quoted in the article sounded like housewives to me.

condra

PDN wrote: »

I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't defended these people at all.

I wasn't. I should have been clearer about that. Edited to make sure.