There is a LOT in common between the lockdown policies and the assisted dying bill.
Let's start with them both centring on the fear of death and both leveraging emotional appeals to justify extreme measures.
But there's much more...🧵
Let's start with them both centring on the fear of death and both leveraging emotional appeals to justify extreme measures.
But there's much more...🧵
Lockdowns crossed a Rubicon in terms of civil rights - overturning the social contract.
Euthanasia crosses a Rubicon in terms of moral norms - again overturning the social contract.
Support and opposition to both policies has come from across traditional party lines.
Euthanasia crosses a Rubicon in terms of moral norms - again overturning the social contract.
Support and opposition to both policies has come from across traditional party lines.
In both cases government did not provide a risk benefit analysis.
In both cases government has not had input from ethics advisors.
In both cases government has not had input from ethics advisors.
Lockdown legislation was imposed rapidly with no public debate, insufficient public debate and the excuse of following international precendents.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
Lockdown was backed with a hugely expensive media campaign and independent opposing voices were drowned out.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
At their core, both policies reflect a fantasy of control: control over a virus that spreads invisibly and uncontrollably, and control over death.
The reality of the process is not what people might expect (see oregon data below - range column showed how long death took).
The reality of the process is not what people might expect (see oregon data below - range column showed how long death took).
Lockdowns were predicated on a belief in the High Priest status of doctors and the santity of the NHS - that must be protected at all costs.
The dying bill similarly assumes doctors are omniscient in both predicting and delivering death.
The dying bill similarly assumes doctors are omniscient in both predicting and delivering death.
The arguments about saving NHS resource are rarely articulated but must be at the back or people's minds.
For both, the philosophy of "what if?" dominates decision-making, often ignoring evidence to the contrary.lbc.co.uk/news/health-se…
For both, the philosophy of "what if?" dominates decision-making, often ignoring evidence to the contrary.lbc.co.uk/news/health-se…
Emotional stories fuelled the push for lockdown.
The image of drowning in fecal vomit has been evoked even though that never happens with even the most basic care and if it did - interventions to treat it would fix the problem before any discussions of death could begin.
The image of drowning in fecal vomit has been evoked even though that never happens with even the most basic care and if it did - interventions to treat it would fix the problem before any discussions of death could begin.
Lockdowns and the policies that came with it led to isolation, neglect and deaths of the most vulnerable.
Even the thought that dying is an option will cause immense distress.
All the evidence points to this being a very slippery and steep slope. tinyurl.com/2s3m96p9
Even the thought that dying is an option will cause immense distress.
All the evidence points to this being a very slippery and steep slope. tinyurl.com/2s3m96p9
Both reflect the demands of the "laptop class," who are largely immune from the detrimental effects.
There has been speculation that politicians more familiar with being marginalised were more likely to oppose the bill.
There has been speculation that politicians more familiar with being marginalised were more likely to oppose the bill.
https://x.com/DrCalumMiller/status/1862643176072269927
Factual objections are dismissed in favour of emotional appeals.
When presented with facts public support dropped to 11%.
Yet MPs continue to ignore the facts, advancing legislation that favours emotion over evidence.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
When presented with facts public support dropped to 11%.
Yet MPs continue to ignore the facts, advancing legislation that favours emotion over evidence.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
Both reflect a troubling willingness to sacrifice fundamental principles in the face of fear of death.
No lessons have been learned from the disaster of 2020 onwards.
No lessons have been learned from the disaster of 2020 onwards.
One more:
Lockdowns impacted on children horribly.
All the arguments for the dying bill could be applied to children.
Leadbetter has already implied expansions:
And a bill for funding children's hospice care was pushed aside for this!
Lockdowns impacted on children horribly.
All the arguments for the dying bill could be applied to children.
Leadbetter has already implied expansions:
And a bill for funding children's hospice care was pushed aside for this!
https://x.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1862803129374290255
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
