Rosary-chanting protesters force euthanasia talk to be abandoned

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 ?

coffee_cake

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.

lostexpectation

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.

that because these are people are scumbags and zealots, that the difference

CDfm

lostexpectation wrote: »

that because these are people are scumbags and zealots, that the difference

like these radicals quouted in the Irish Times

“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.”

LOL:D

KnifeWRENCH

I am very disappointed to hear this. On one level, it's because I myself am very strongly in favour of euthanasia.
Mainly though, it's because these people intimidated a man who wanted a debate, not just a lecture. If they disagree with him, then they should debate with him rationally. Instead, they basically bullied him away.

These are the kind of people who give Christianity (and religion in general) a bad name, and it's unfair on religious people who are willing to have fair debate and not resort to scare tactics.

Fighting Irish

jackpalance wrote: »

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 a typical religious person.

fixed

CDfm

square_igloo wrote: »

I am very disappointed to hear this. On one level, it's because I myself am very strongly in favour of euthanasia.
Mainly though, it's because these people intimidated a man who wanted a debate, not just a lecture. If they disagree with him, then they should debate with him rationally. Instead, they basically bullied him away.

These are the kind of people who give Christianity (and religion in general) a bad name, and it's unfair on religious people who are willing to have fair debate and not resort to scare tactics.

But Len Doyal is a bit of a radical and zealot himself and an advocate of involuntary euthenasia.

Here is a link to his views in the Guardian from 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/08/health.medicineandhealth1

Call for no-consent euthanasia

Doctors should be able to end lives swiftly and humanely, says professor

* Sarah Boseley , health editor
* The Guardian, Thursday 8 June 2006


One of the country's leading experts on medical ethics today calls for doctors to be able to end the lives of some terminally ill patients "swiftly, humanely and without guilt" - even if they have not given consent.

Len Doyal, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Queen Mary, University of London, takes the euthanasia debate into new and highly contentious territory. He says doctors should recognise that they are already killing patients when they remove feeding tubes from those whose lives are judged to be no longer worth living. Some will suffer a "slow and distressing death" as a result.

It would be better if their lives were ended without this unnecessary delay, Professor Doyal writes in an article in Clinical Ethics, published by the Royal Society of Medicine. He calls for the law and professional guidance to be changed.

Critics said yesterday that the views of Prof Doyal, a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee for nine years, were the "very worst form of medical paternalism".

Zillah

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

I dont know - I think it means that a doctor can make a decision him or herself without regard to the views that a patient might have expressed in a "living will" , the patients family or the courts.

He is also a supporter of assisted suicide in some cases,

condra

No, I think he wanted a more "Logan's Run" type situation where you're exterminated when you reach a certain age.

Sorry just kidding.

CDfm

womoma wrote: »

No, I think he wanted a more "Logan's Run" type situation where you're exterminated when you reach a certain age.

Sorry just kidding.

Well thats what the Women in Cork think.

I still am hugely amused that they planned the debate in the hospital itself slap bank in the middle of Wilton. This kind of controversial debate is more a Student Union type thing and not HSE territory.

There is a good link here to Care Not Killing Alliance that covers many of the issues. Its founder Dr Peter Saunders is very anti Prof Doyals views but it isnt a religious site.

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

When they say no-consent, I presume they mean coma patients, or those who are in some way incapable of interacting?

If I am reading it correctly it is patients who the doctors have already decided to let die by taking them off life support, such as feeding tubes.

They want the ability to actually kill the person rather than waiting for them to starve to death.

I can see how in isolation, without this context, the call could be seen as giving doctors the power to kill someone for the heck of it, but really it seems to simply be the ability to speed up the process after they have already decided to let someone die.