Director of Public Prosecution Subverts Parliament



Gerald Warner has written an excellent post on Keith Starmer's announcement on the subtle difference between 'mercy killing' and 'assisted suicide' on 'wholly compassionate grounds'. He also notes that Gordon Brown gets to say one thing on the dangers of assisted suicide in public, while the Director of Public Prosecutions takes the flak and gets his hands dirty. Clever, clever, Gordon. Mr Brown apparently claimed that it was Tony Blair who ruined his life and said so to his face. That may or may not be true but that is no reason to take it out on us.

Murder, like beauty, is now in the eye of the beholder and Parliament hasn't even voted on the matter. One man's 'assister of suicide' or even 'murderer' is another man's 'fighter for the right to die'. Doesn't it make you proud to see Britain at the forefront of the suicide cult that secular atheism promotes and the twin of tyranny which comes from its adoption as the State religion?

The Telegraph reports that...

'The guidelines published today make clear that anyone assisting suicide who benefits from the death is unlikely to be prosecuted as long as compassion was the "driving force" behind their actions.'

Compassion was the "driving force" for Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and I don't remember her injecting a lethal cocktail of drugs into the terminally sick and dying back then or smothering the dying with pillows. I guess God was her safeguard in that matter. After all, He desires 'mercy', not 'sacrifice'.

The BBC reports...


Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said whether a person acted "wholly compassionately" and not for financial reasons was important. But he made it clear the advice does not represent a change in the law and does not cover so-called mercy killing.


We are truly a nation in freefall. Many will die as a result of this 'clarification' since the waters have been significantly muddied on what constitutes assisted suicide and what constitutes a great work of charity for your neighbour by means of killing them. I am quite sure, for instance, that if the whole family wants Grandma's estate then parents could convince the children to keep schtum and promise them an X-Box, while Grandma, the only other eye witness to murder is conveniently placed six foot under the ground.

Many responsible for murder shall in future be seen as 'compassionate'. That is the kind of age in which we are living. The idea that the vulnerable will not be bumped off, or even starved to death, by their 'loving' relatives is fantasy. For evidence of this, read this and for yet more evidence that the Bishops Conference of England and Wales do not comprehend the gravity of the situation in our country, see this. Our Bishops are so timid in defending Christ and His Church, even the innocent unborn, so relativistic in their teaching, that I am beginning to wonder whether the masonic infiltration of the 1960s was a little more serious than at first thought.

Comments

Reg said…
Lawrence:

Your examples:

"Compassion was the "driving force" for Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and I don't remember her injecting a lethal cocktail of drugs into the terminally sick and dying back then or smothering the dying with pillows."

are not of assisted suicide.

As the DPP makes clear in the advice if someone takes direct and deliberate steps to kill another person that is murder. Smothering someone is not assisting them in suicide it is taking their life - murder.

The guidelines would not operate in your examples.
Ember Friday said…
Lawrence:

You write:

"Many responsible for murder shall in future be seen as 'compassionate'. That is the kind of age in which we are living. The idea that the vulnerable will not be bumped off, or even starved to death, by their 'loving' relatives is fantasy. For evidence of this, read this (the decision to accept a guilty plea of manslaughter from Khyra Ishaq's mother)..

This case is not a case of "assisted suicide", the child in this case was starved and beaten by her mother. How is this relevant to your argument on "assisted suicide"?