0:00

On November 7th, Thundercat, Kerasoft, and Avidia

0:02

teamed up to host a discussion with

0:04

leading government panelists to speak on best

0:07

practices and challenges agencies are facing with

0:09

AI. Learn how we can plan to

0:11

navigate complex policy landscapes, assess agency needs,

0:13

and contribute to shaping the future of

0:16

AI applications in the government. You can

0:18

now tune in to the conversation on

0:20

the Feds at the Edge podcast, streaming

0:23

on all major platforms. Visit thundercattech.com/events for

0:25

more info. That's thundercattech.com/events. If

0:31

you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property,

0:33

you've had to deal with everything from leaky

0:35

faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse

0:37

than that ancient boiler that's lived in the

0:39

building since the day it was built. 50

0:42

years ago, it's enough to make

0:45

anyone lose their cool. That's where

0:47

Grainger comes in. With industrial-grade products

0:49

and dependable fast delivery, Grainger can

0:51

help with any challenge. From worn-out

0:53

components to everyday necessities, call clickrainger.com

0:55

or just stop by Grainger for

0:57

the ones who get it done.

1:01

Canada, which legalized assisted

1:04

suicide in 2016, and

1:06

in 2027, they are

1:08

extending the benefits of

1:10

assisted suicide in Asia

1:13

to all people who

1:15

are mentally ill. There's

1:17

this immediate pressure that comes

1:20

upon them to widen the

1:22

criteria. There are 54 MPs

1:24

already who have declared

1:26

that the bill isn't wide

1:29

enough. And we think that they are

1:31

going to go home as soon as it's passed.

1:34

We're mistaken. Hello,

1:38

welcome back to the Brendan O'Neill show with

1:40

me, Brendan O'Neill, and my special guest this

1:42

week, Kevin Ewell. Kevin, welcome to the show.

1:45

Thank you very much. It's a great honour

1:47

to be here. Kevin, it's

1:49

great to have you on. I have known

1:51

you for a long time

1:53

in your capacity as a writer, a

1:56

historian, a contributor to

1:58

Spiked for many, many years. But

2:00

I think most listeners to the podcast will be

2:02

familiar with you through the

2:04

stuff you've been doing for Spike

2:06

on the issue of assisted dying,

2:08

so-called assisted dying, assisted suicide, something

2:11

you've been writing about with

2:14

great passion, actually, and you've put forward

2:16

an incredibly strong humanist case against assisted

2:18

dying. And you've been doing that for

2:20

quite some time. And Spike's been delighted

2:22

to host so much of your commentary

2:24

on that. So I thought for

2:27

listeners, I would kick off with a broad question,

2:29

which is just to ask you how

2:31

you got interested in this issue. What is

2:33

it that piqued your interest and your concern

2:35

about this particular issue? Well,

2:38

it goes way, way back to when

2:40

I was very young. I was 18

2:42

and a friend of mine, I

2:45

lived in Canada at the time and a friend of mine went

2:48

off and shot

2:50

himself in the head in a hotel room

2:53

elsewhere. And it was just one

2:55

of those shocking moments that when you're

2:57

18, makes you consider

2:59

all sorts of things. And it's still something that

3:01

last time I went back and I saw my

3:03

friends and we're all

3:06

in our late fifties

3:08

and sixties now. And

3:10

everybody remembered that moment, everybody

3:12

remembered what happened to this young

3:14

man. So that got

3:16

us thinking, you know, I worked

3:19

with his father and I just saw the

3:21

horrible effects on his family. And I

3:23

thought this is a bad

3:26

action. Suicide is generally a bad thing.

3:28

We did go through the issues, you

3:30

know, oh, should it actually

3:32

be something that we support?

3:34

Is it his own decision? How

3:37

should we understand his action?

3:39

And we all decided that

3:42

it was a bad thing and that we can

3:44

forgive him for it. But it is, you

3:47

know, it had a huge effect on

3:49

his family and friends to

3:51

this day. So that's what started me

3:53

off. And then when

3:55

Dr Kevorkian, some of people might be

3:57

old enough to remember who Dr. Kevorkian

4:00

was. He was

4:02

the doctor in the United

4:04

States who created what he called a

4:06

mercy Tron, which did

4:10

basically assist suicides. And

4:13

the person had to press on to

4:15

release some drugs into their

4:17

veins, and he had concocted this. And

4:20

when that came up, I remember thinking no,

4:22

no, no, this is wrong, we should not

4:25

be encouraging any form of

4:27

suicide. So that's what set me

4:29

off really. And I published my first article on

4:31

it way back in 1996. When you

4:35

were just out of short trousers, I imagine,

4:37

Brendan. Yeah, just about.

4:40

That's a very useful opening. And

4:42

the thing that strikes me immediately

4:44

listening to you there is

4:47

your use of the word suicide, because

4:49

we can dig down into this in a bit

4:51

more depth. But it's it's notable

4:53

by its absence in a lot of this

4:56

discussion. So one of the reasons I was

4:58

very keen to speak to you this week is that, of course,

5:00

the terminally ill adults end

5:02

of life bill is going through the

5:04

House of Commons and MPs

5:06

have a free vote on it on Friday this

5:08

week, the week that we're speaking. And the

5:12

name of the bill doesn't have the word

5:14

suicide in it. A lot of people are

5:16

referring to it as an assisted dying bill.

5:18

So you're helping someone to die. And

5:21

it is it's such a striking element

5:23

of this whole issue that you rarely

5:25

hear the word suicide. So I think

5:27

some people will even be surprised to

5:29

hear you tie this

5:31

issue of assisted dying, as it's referred

5:33

to, to your friend committing

5:36

suicide all those years ago. So explain

5:38

to us a bit about why you think

5:40

it's important to understand this within the realm

5:42

of suicide? How did your thinking work in

5:44

relation to that? Well,

5:46

I think, you know, there is

5:49

the question, is it suicide? And

5:51

I would argue basically that if

5:55

I put a gun to my head and shoot myself,

5:57

that I think everybody would recognize

6:00

suicide. If a doctor

6:02

handed a rope to a woman knowing she

6:04

was going to hang herself, I think we'd

6:08

all recognize that as assisted suicide.

6:11

But if a doctor hands

6:14

deadly drugs that

6:16

will end the life of somebody and

6:18

this person takes them on purpose, I

6:21

think it's ridiculous to call out anything

6:23

other than suicide. I think

6:26

when you cause your own death, that

6:29

is suicide. If it is your choice, I

6:32

can't see that we should call it any

6:34

other word. The assisted

6:36

dying really only came up

6:38

in about 2005, 2006.

6:41

And it was basically a

6:44

marketing term that allowed people

6:46

who were wishing for assisted

6:49

suicide to call it

6:51

a nicer name. Anybody

6:53

who has been on the underground

6:56

in Westminster, for instance, may

6:58

have seen all of the nice

7:00

airbrushed posters with

7:03

a young woman dancing around

7:05

in her pajamas, celebrating dignity

7:08

and dying, and their

7:10

crusade, and talking about

7:13

the terminally ill assisted

7:16

dying, proternally ill bill. And

7:18

I think that really indicates

7:21

how the whole conversation

7:23

has moved in that

7:25

there is branding experts who are coming in and

7:28

airbrushing all of the

7:30

messy and uncertain aspects out of death.

7:32

And that's part of their message is

7:35

to try and say, if somebody

7:37

in a white coat comes along and does

7:40

it with you, then that

7:42

sanctions suicide. It's something

7:44

that in my book in 2013, I talked about as

7:46

being almost a

7:49

pseudo religious idea that suddenly

7:52

the priest moves away from the bedside

7:55

and a doctor moves in and says, yes, you

7:57

are suffering my son. You may

8:00

take your life. And I

8:02

think assisted dying is just

8:04

another marketing term, just

8:07

like Blanket Ban and all of

8:09

these other things. And there's this

8:11

idea within, particularly

8:13

within Dignity and Dime, which

8:15

is the leading organization behind Kim

8:18

Ledbeter's bill. There's an idea

8:21

that, you know, we

8:23

can spend a lot of money and make

8:25

glossy propaganda, and somehow that's going to convince

8:27

people. And I think what

8:30

we can see is that it will

8:32

not. That whole advertising campaign with

8:34

these images

8:36

on the underground, which promote suicide,

8:39

which people are finding ironic, given

8:41

that the tube is a notorious

8:43

place site for suicides.

8:45

And also given that Transport

8:47

for London has banned adverts

8:50

for junk food. So

8:53

I think I would insist that it's

8:55

really, if we're going to be honest,

8:57

and we're going to start out with

9:00

an honest conversation about that, we really

9:02

have to admit that this is assisted

9:04

suicide. And it's interesting

9:06

you mentioned Dignity and Dime,

9:08

one of the lead campaign groups on this

9:10

issue, which was originally

9:13

called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

9:15

So I just find the

9:17

changing language so, so interesting. And I

9:20

want to come back to that question

9:22

of euthanasia and what, and

9:24

the imperative behind some of this stuff and

9:26

how it might be related to old ideas

9:28

of euthanasia. I want to come back

9:30

to that in a moment. But let's, you mentioned

9:32

there, Kim Ledbeter, the Labour MP, she's

9:34

bringing forward this bill, terminally ill adults

9:36

end of life. And as I say, MPs

9:39

are going to vote on it. So

9:41

let's talk a little bit about that

9:43

bill specifically. I mean,

9:45

I'm quite surprised there has been a

9:47

fairly healthy discussion as a consequence of

9:49

this bill. And even

9:51

some members of parliament have made some very

9:53

good statements about the bill and why they're

9:55

opposing it and their concerns and so on.

9:58

But let's talk about the bill. in a bit

10:00

more depth. To kick us off,

10:03

maybe you could just outline what the bill

10:05

provides or what it provides for, what it

10:07

claims it will do if it were to

10:09

pass through the Commons. Paul

10:11

Jay Well, it claims that

10:13

it will allow terminally ill adults,

10:16

of which there's an estimated maybe 5000 years that

10:18

the figure that

10:21

I've heard, who will be

10:23

able to take their own lives. And

10:26

they will be able to with

10:29

a doctor by talking to a doctor,

10:32

and that doctor must get

10:34

another doctor to agree. And then those

10:37

doctors, the coordinating doctor, as it's called, or

10:39

he or she has called in the in

10:43

the proposed legislation, must

10:46

apply to a high

10:48

court judge. And once

10:50

that's okayed, then

10:53

this person, then the

10:55

coordinating doctor can give

10:57

this medication. So that's the

11:00

very simple idea that however,

11:02

it rapidly gets complicated. There

11:04

are as many questions, as

11:07

there are answers

11:10

in this bill. So for instance, if

11:12

you're happy for me to go

11:14

into the specifics of the bill,

11:16

it doesn't prevent doctors from proposing

11:19

assisted suicide, which is different from

11:21

most legislation elsewhere, except

11:23

in Canada, where this has become

11:25

an issue, to the extent where

11:28

25 doctors in Nova Scotia have

11:30

resigned, because they don't

11:32

want to participate in

11:34

this. And they don't want to have to say

11:36

this. And that's the other aspect, it doesn't allow

11:38

doctors to opt out, have

11:40

either discussing assisted suicide or to

11:43

do what's called an effective referral,

11:45

which means pointing the person

11:47

in the direction of

11:51

somebody who will give

11:53

them a push off the proverbial edge, so to

11:55

speak. So it

11:58

doesn't prevent doctors from proposing. it.

12:00

So therefore, any good doctor is

12:02

going to present all of the treatment options,

12:05

I would have thought. And this

12:07

is a huge problem. There are

12:10

it's also the phrasing that it

12:12

uses to define what is terminal

12:14

illness, that could include

12:16

people with type one diabetes, since

12:19

insulin does not reverse the primary

12:21

condition. And you can bring yourself

12:23

to within death. If

12:26

you have time, I want diabetes,

12:28

it also could rather shockingly

12:31

include those with anorexia and

12:33

arthritis in the way that

12:35

it's worded at the moment.

12:38

The doctor can assist the person to take

12:40

the drugs, but not cause death. And

12:43

these are contradictory statements open to

12:45

abuse. There is no

12:48

requirement to monitor the doctor's assessments,

12:50

which is also a little

12:52

bit odd, they can refer

12:54

it to a high court judge can ask

12:57

for the information but doesn't necessarily need

12:59

to. There's also the

13:02

use of a proxy to sign the form

13:04

if the patient cannot sign

13:07

it is also I feel

13:10

open to abuse. It

13:12

legalizes assisted suicides for

13:14

patients whose deaths

13:16

can be reasonably expected within six months.

13:18

But as any doctor will tell you,

13:21

it's impossible. It's like predicting the weather.

13:24

You can predict it for the next week or so.

13:27

But you cannot predict it for six

13:29

months time. A norcan doctors predict that

13:32

a patient is going to die within six months,

13:34

they can tell if somebody's going to die

13:36

within a week. But they can't

13:39

tell within six months. In fact, studies have

13:41

shown that they get it as wrong more

13:43

than they actually get it right in about

13:45

a third of patients live

13:47

beyond a six month prognosis.

13:50

So that's also curious

13:52

about the bill. The

13:54

Secretary of State must ensure that

13:56

assisted suicide is available. But

13:59

she or he is under no

14:01

such duty to provide palliative care to everyone who

14:03

needs it. And this is one of the issues

14:06

that has been very prominent

14:08

in the discussion about this bill,

14:11

is that palliative care should be open

14:15

to everybody who wants it before

14:17

this is offered. Many

14:20

people are saying that. So

14:22

it is a bit of a

14:25

dog's dinner, this bill, really. There's also

14:28

one of the bizarre clauses,

14:30

I think it's 23, says

14:32

that there is no coroner's

14:35

reports on any of the deaths

14:37

caused by assisted suicide,

14:40

which is very, very odd because

14:42

that's a protection for people to

14:45

ensure that no malfeasance

14:47

occurs and that's

14:49

being removed. So there are all sorts

14:51

of questions about the bill. This

14:54

episode of the Brendan O'Neill show is brought

14:57

to you by Beckett's Gin. With Christmas just

14:59

round the corner, Beckett's Gin and Whiskey will

15:01

make the ideal presents for your loved ones

15:04

and if they're anything like me, they'll

15:06

find it impossible to go back to

15:09

other brands. You can really taste the

15:11

quality in all of Beckett's spirits. Unlike

15:13

other gins that overwhelm you with a

15:16

million different trendy flavours, Beckett's only use

15:18

six botanicals and they only

15:20

use the best possible ingredients like

15:22

juniper berries hand-picked in Surrey and

15:25

mint leaves from Kingston upon Thames. Beckett's

15:28

has something for everyone. Their London Dry

15:30

Gin is a great all-rounder and is

15:32

perfect if you're looking to elevate your

15:35

classic G&T. I've been enjoying

15:37

it with just a plain tonic to really

15:39

let the flavour shine and if

15:41

you're looking for something a bit different,

15:43

I can highly recommend Beckett's Slow Gin.

15:46

They take their London Dry Gin and

15:48

steep it in the finest slow berries,

15:50

producing an incredible, rich, almost cherry flavour.

15:53

With ginger ale and a slice of orange,

15:55

it is the perfect Christmas drink. Even

15:58

if you're not into gin, Beckett's has covered

16:00

with their brand new whisky. It's a

16:02

nice and smooth English single malt which

16:04

has been matured in Beckett's slow gin

16:07

casks, making it the first in the

16:09

world to be produced this way. And

16:12

since Beckett's is only producing around

16:14

300 bottles of their incredible whisky each

16:16

year, you will want to get in

16:19

early. I'm also delighted to tell you

16:21

that fans of this show can get

16:23

a 20% discount on all Beckett's

16:25

spirits, including their gin, their brand new

16:28

whisky and more. Just head over

16:30

to Beckett's Gin.co dot

16:32

uk slash Brendan to

16:34

claim your discount right

16:36

now. That's B E

16:38

C K E T

16:40

T S G

16:42

I N.co dot uk

16:44

slash Brendan to get

16:47

20% off. Beckett's

16:49

Gin.co dot uk slash

16:52

Brendan. That's

16:54

a really useful outline. And there are

16:56

a whole load of questions. I'm also

16:58

very struck by the stipulation

17:01

that the person going

17:04

forward for a so-called assisted dime would

17:06

have to be someone who was expected,

17:08

reasonably expected to die within six months.

17:11

But I mean, a lot of people listening

17:13

to this will know of people who were

17:16

given such a timeline and people can

17:18

live longer than expected. And it's

17:21

an extraordinary bill in terms of in the

17:23

way you've just outlined it there. But one

17:25

thing that a lot of people are saying

17:28

and Kim led beta is leading the charge

17:30

on this, they're talking about the safeguards in

17:32

the bill. I've found

17:34

this a slightly frustrating element of the discussion

17:36

because there's been a lot of focus on

17:38

the safeguards. And I keep wanting to say

17:40

no, let's talk about the bigger

17:43

principles, the larger moral

17:45

philosophical questions. But on

17:47

the question of safeguards, it

17:50

seems unconvincing to me firstly, for the

17:52

reasons you've outlined there, which is that

17:54

there are not particularly good guardrails and

17:56

and there's always the potential for a

17:58

slippery slope. if you

18:00

look at the experiences of other countries,

18:02

it seems pretty clear that even legislation

18:04

that starts off in a ostensibly

18:08

narrow focus on who might have the

18:10

so-called right to die can

18:12

very easily expand into other categories of people

18:14

as well. What have you

18:17

made of the safeguards discussion? Are you

18:19

convinced by the so-called safeguards? What do

18:21

you think the focus

18:23

on that in particular tells us? Well,

18:26

I think what Kim

18:28

Leadbeater is trying to do is

18:30

to bring together the safest bill

18:34

ever. That's what she actually

18:36

explains it as, is that there are

18:38

such safeguards that, for instance, a

18:42

judge must be involved in this decision,

18:44

which is unlike any other country as

18:46

far as I know, and

18:49

what they've included. It's not terribly practical

18:51

given that it has to be a

18:53

high court judge. I think they can

18:55

substitute somebody else, but there

18:57

are 18 high court judges, which

19:00

if we use the

19:02

number that they use, which is 5,000

19:04

cases, that's going to inundate

19:07

the courts as well

19:09

as the National Health Service. So

19:11

that's a very, very odd thing. The

19:14

problem with safeguards is that it's

19:17

impossible really to draw a line between

19:20

those who you think should die and categorize

19:23

them and say, you know what, we're going

19:25

to prevent the suicide of all these groups

19:27

over here, but this little

19:29

group over here, we're going to actually encourage

19:32

the suicides up. And once you hit

19:35

that inherent problem, it's

19:37

impossible to have safeguards that have

19:40

any meaning whatsoever. There's

19:42

no moral distinction between somebody with

19:45

six months to die and seven

19:47

months to die. That's ridiculous.

19:49

And even the mechanisms that

19:51

she puts in are open

19:54

to all sorts of problems. And the

19:57

good news is that when I first

19:59

started writing, about this issue a long

20:02

time ago, as you know, we

20:05

didn't have evidence to show that what

20:08

I was predicting would happen would

20:10

actually happen. Now, from other countries,

20:13

we have evidence. The

20:15

most egregious example, of course, is Canada,

20:18

which legalized assisted

20:21

suicide and euthanasia

20:25

in 2016, because it where

20:27

it had the stipulation that somebody had to

20:29

be, have their

20:31

death as reasonably foreseeable

20:34

was the phrase. And they

20:36

removed that in 2020. And it basically gave

20:42

the right to all disabled people

20:45

to have an assisted

20:47

suicide and or a euthanasia,

20:49

probably just one or the other, actually. But

20:52

yes, they increased

20:54

that in 2020 to include

20:57

anybody with a chronic condition, anybody

21:00

who had a permanent chronic condition.

21:02

And in 2027, they are extending

21:06

the benefits of assisted suicide

21:09

and euthanasia to all people

21:11

who are mentally ill and

21:15

suffering. So I mean, one

21:18

of the problems with the safeguards is

21:20

that there's this immediate pressure that comes

21:22

upon them to widen the

21:25

criteria. And rightly so. There

21:28

are 54 MPs already who

21:31

have declared that the

21:33

bill isn't wide enough. And

21:36

if we think that they are going to go home

21:38

as soon as it's passed, we're

21:40

mistaken. And I think it will increase

21:42

in every country where

21:45

it's been legalized, including Oregon, it is expanded

21:47

to include more and more people in Oregon

21:49

and expanded in 2020. And in 2023, this

21:51

is the Oregon is the kind of model

21:54

for Tim

21:59

Leadbeater. bill. So it's

22:01

very, very important. There's misinformation, shall we

22:04

call it, we used to call it

22:06

lies, didn't we? But it's misinformation being

22:09

put about by dignity and dying.

22:12

That Oregon has never

22:14

extended its laws. And

22:16

it has. It reduced

22:18

the waiting time from 15 days to

22:22

48 hours and in some cases less.

22:26

People from outside of the state

22:28

to be euthanized

22:30

or to have an assisted suicide more

22:33

accurately. Oregon restricts

22:36

their program to only assisted

22:38

suicide. But it allows now

22:40

people from out of town to

22:42

come in. And the other thing

22:44

that even though these cases are

22:47

really badly documented, and this

22:49

is one of the reasons we're so

22:51

disturbed about the idea that the coroner

22:53

can't actually assess what happened with

22:55

the death. Because I've

22:58

seen a recent article that

23:01

documents 60 cases of women, 100% women,

23:04

who have had assisted

23:10

deaths because they are

23:12

anorexia. And these are mostly young

23:15

women, mostly under the age of 30.

23:18

And it's this shocking, and this has taken

23:20

place in Oregon, as well as other places,

23:22

because of course, you can bring yourself to

23:25

a terminal condition

23:28

by refusing to eat. So

23:30

safeguards, I think, I

23:33

would point to the examples from abroad,

23:35

but I'd also say that

23:37

whatever these safeguards are, are actually

23:41

in the lead beater bill, the

23:43

real pressure on people will

23:45

come because they feel a burden.

23:47

There's a very important reason why

23:50

people will go for this is

23:52

because I don't know whether everybody

23:54

else's elderly relatives have said this, but many elderly

23:56

relatives have said, Oh, well, I don't want to

23:59

be a my family or

24:01

even to the National Health Service, many people

24:04

are like that. And that's

24:06

where the pressure will come from

24:08

and no safeguard in the world

24:10

can stop that from happening.

24:13

Yeah, I think that is such an

24:15

important point. You know,

24:17

I've been involved in an end

24:19

of life situation over the past

24:22

few years and the sense people

24:24

have of being a burden is

24:26

so acute and profound. And many

24:29

people will know that one of the key things

24:32

one feels the instinct to do is

24:34

to keep saying to them, you're not a burden.

24:36

It's all fine. Don't worry about it. Whereas I

24:38

think legislation like this and this idea itself contributes

24:41

to the sense that people are a burden

24:43

and gives them a way

24:45

out of being a burden. And it's the

24:47

worst way out you could imagine it's to

24:50

end their life early because apparently they're too

24:52

burdensome on society or someone else. I

24:56

want to ask you about the other states

24:59

and countries where this legislation has

25:01

been introduced and where it has

25:03

expanded or it has vastly

25:06

gone beyond its original remit. You've

25:09

been writing about places like this for

25:11

a long time. You've written about Oregon,

25:13

you've written about Canada, you've talked about

25:15

the Netherlands and Belgium and what's happening

25:17

in these countries where they've introduced so-called

25:19

assisted dying. I did want to ask

25:21

you specifically about the Canadian example

25:24

which you've mentioned and this is where

25:26

you're from. It's one example of

25:31

assisted suicide that has garnered international

25:33

headlines and there has been a

25:35

lot of discussion about

25:37

what's going on in Canada. Last month

25:39

even The Guardian published a

25:41

piece saying something's up in

25:43

Canada because some of the

25:46

people requesting assisted death are

25:49

people who do not have a non, do

25:51

not have a terminal illness but in

25:54

many cases have unmet social needs.

25:56

So they might be homeless or

25:58

they might be incredibly poor. They're

26:00

seeking... taking death as a solution

26:03

to social problems, not necessarily to

26:05

terminal illness. So how bad

26:08

is it in Canada? I mean, is it

26:10

really the case that they've

26:12

introduced essentially a system

26:15

of voluntary death that expands to, I

26:18

guess, a pretty large section of society

26:20

if one were to boil it down?

26:22

Yes. I mean, one of the

26:25

problems with this kind of legislation

26:27

is that once it's

26:29

passed, then it

26:31

attracts no discussion whatsoever. I

26:33

have one friend from Belgium

26:36

who was supportive of the Belgian

26:38

law when it came in. He thought, oh

26:40

yes, we are a progressive land. This is

26:42

great. We should be leading in

26:45

this kind of legislation. And the

26:47

only reason that he turned against

26:49

it was because he came home

26:51

one day and he

26:54

received an email saying, can you collect

26:56

your mother's things? And

26:58

he found out that his mother, who

27:01

had struggled with mental illness and whom for

27:03

the past couple of months had been estranged

27:05

from this man, had ordered

27:08

a euthanasia at age 58 or

27:10

56 it was and been given

27:12

it. And he had not

27:15

been contacted. And suddenly this

27:17

kind of practice that happens behind

27:19

closed doors most of the time

27:21

was suddenly exposed to him and

27:23

he became one of

27:25

its worst critics, which is

27:27

I think what happens once you

27:29

legalize it, it happens sort of

27:32

more and more. It becomes a part

27:34

of healthcare and it

27:37

becomes institutionalized and then

27:39

it goes under the

27:41

radar. There's an interesting

27:43

case in Australia where

27:46

there's a gentleman called Cyril Toos

27:48

who was 86 years old. He was diagnosed with

27:53

terminal illness and then

27:55

he was he applied

27:58

and was successful in his application. to

28:00

have home help

28:02

come in under the Australian Universal

28:05

Medicine Program. He

28:09

was told that the home help

28:11

would take 10 months. He

28:15

could not afford to pay for

28:17

private home care and

28:19

he couldn't have with his rent. He

28:23

had retired at age 82, poor man,

28:25

as a carer, and he didn't have

28:27

a lot of money. His nearest

28:29

relatives were far away and he

28:32

just opted for an assisted

28:34

suicide because he couldn't

28:36

cope with these various

28:38

different pressures. This is what I

28:40

think is emerging from various

28:43

different places where it has been legalized.

28:45

It has been legalized in

28:48

more areas than, for instance, when I

28:50

first started writing. It has

28:52

expanded, but this isn't

28:54

gay marriage. It hasn't whipped

28:57

through right throughout. For

28:59

instance, in the United States in the past

29:01

three years, there have been no

29:03

new areas where it has

29:05

been legalized. No new states

29:07

have actually legalized its 10

29:10

states and the District of

29:12

Columbia as well in the United

29:14

States. It's not something that can't

29:16

be beaten, and it's something that

29:18

you can really see is

29:21

attracting so much debate here because

29:24

of this bill. I think it's

29:26

not a bad thing to have all of

29:28

this debate. I think it is

29:30

something that the more people know about, the more

29:32

they oppose. I think that's

29:35

right. Absolutely. I did

29:37

want to ask you about, again,

29:39

this is a kind of language question, but I

29:41

think it's an important question about the issue of

29:44

choice and, I guess,

29:46

the broader question of autonomy. I

29:49

think it's so interesting because, firstly,

29:52

the use of that word, and it is used quite frequently.

29:54

I think even Kim Ledbeter has used it herself on Twitter.

29:57

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not

29:59

sure. I'm not sure. others around this issue,

30:01

people who campaign for the so-called right to

30:03

die often use the word choice, often use

30:05

the words like autonomy. It's interesting

30:07

to me firstly because that rather gives the

30:10

game away about the idea that there could

30:13

never be an expansion of the categories or that

30:15

this isn't a slippery slope because as soon as

30:17

you buy into the idea that people should have

30:19

this choice, they should have the choice to end

30:21

it all by being given drugs by

30:24

the doctor, etc, etc, then why would you

30:27

grant that choice to some people and deny

30:29

it to others? So the logic

30:31

of expansion is contained within

30:33

the very idea of choice

30:36

but it also seems to me a pretty

30:38

deceptive notion. I'm generally in

30:40

favor of choice, I'm generally in

30:42

favor of people having, enjoying

30:45

self-government and having autonomy

30:47

over their own lives and their own destinies

30:50

but on this issue it never quite maps

30:52

for me, it doesn't work, I find it

30:54

very unconvincing. What's your take on the

30:57

use of words like that in relation to this? Well,

31:00

I mean first of all, there's a

31:02

few points to make about that. It

31:05

was not always motivated by choice, in

31:07

fact when it was first mooted

31:10

as an idea in 1870 by

31:13

Samuel Williams at the Birmingham

31:15

Speculative Club, he

31:17

motivated by two things, compassion and

31:21

utility. He made the point that a

31:23

person's life was of no use to

31:26

themselves or to anyone else, then

31:29

we ought to feel that we

31:31

can terminate this life. At that

31:33

time he suggested actually

31:36

having chloroform

31:38

and chloroforming these patients, chloroform being

31:40

a fairly new thing in

31:43

1870. So it's never

31:45

really been about choice, in fact

31:47

choice wasn't a

31:49

motivation historically until

31:52

the 1970s. So for instance

31:54

when it was when euthanasia

31:56

was very very big in the

31:59

United States and Britain in the

32:01

1930s and, of course, in Germany

32:04

in the 1930s. Choice

32:07

was very seldom mentioned. In fact,

32:09

the only the voluntary euthanasia aspect

32:11

was only pinned on fairly late

32:13

in the game after two

32:15

bills had gone through in the

32:18

United States trying to get euthanasia

32:20

unsuccessfully in 1906. And

32:24

those didn't work. And so

32:26

the people who were campaigning

32:28

for it were used

32:32

the idea of voluntary euthanasia, but even

32:34

that's not really choice. So

32:36

it's only really in the 1970s with

32:39

the kind of me generation that choice

32:41

became a big thing. And

32:43

as you point out, it's absolutely false. You

32:46

can't have choice in that matter.

32:49

First of all, it's I'm

32:51

in favor of choice and autonomy, but

32:54

I'm not in favor of choice and

32:56

autonomy that destroys the general freedom. And

32:58

this was the point that J.S.

33:00

Mills made. J.S. Mills, one of the great

33:04

prophets of autonomy and

33:06

of freedom, made the

33:08

point that you cannot sell

33:10

yourself into slavery because that would

33:12

undermine the general freedom. Now

33:15

we think that J.S. Mills, who

33:17

had actually attempted suicide himself, was

33:20

really talking about suicide, but certainly

33:22

you can extend that

33:24

principle and say, well, if you're destroying

33:26

the general freedom, which of course suicide

33:28

will do, then we shouldn't

33:31

be in favor of it. So

33:33

I think it's actually it doesn't really

33:35

work. And most people you

33:37

will find when faced

33:40

with the news that the SARCO,

33:42

which is the death pod introduced

33:45

by Philip Nitzky into

33:48

Switzerland, that's been in the news

33:50

recently, it's a kind of miniature

33:52

gas chamber. Most

33:55

people are horrified by that. But in

33:57

fact, if you really take the autonomy

33:59

argument right. to its endpoints, then we

34:01

should all be in favor of

34:03

these little portable gas

34:05

chambers because we

34:07

can do it ourselves without any assistance and

34:09

without relying on a doctor. But

34:12

we'll find that those who out

34:14

choice and autonomy are not really

34:16

that keen on the Sorko. Yeah,

34:20

God, the machinery of

34:22

it all, I know it's not useful to

34:24

focus just on the methods because that takes

34:26

us away from the broader question of why

34:28

this is happening. But some of the methods

34:31

are they do send a chill down the

34:33

spine. And I'm sure you're right, they

34:35

send a chill down the collective spine. Lots of people

34:37

are put off by this stuff enormously. Okay,

34:39

you've said the word euthanasia there a few

34:42

times. I said it earlier on

34:44

as well. So let's talk a bit about

34:46

that because you will know from all the

34:48

discussions that you've had on this issue over

34:50

the years. If you

34:52

were to say to some, you know, painfully

34:57

right on middle class journalist

34:59

at The Guardian or some

35:02

high gate based campaigner for dignity and

35:04

dying, you know, good people,

35:06

decent people who we happen

35:08

to disagree with. If you were to

35:10

say to any of these people who campaign for the so

35:12

called right to die, if you were to use the word

35:14

euthanasia, if you were to make

35:17

even a connection between the

35:19

dynamic of euthanasia in the past and

35:21

this movement for the so

35:23

called freedom to die in the 21st century,

35:25

they would run

35:27

a mile, they would think you were talking gibberish,

35:29

they would not be able to see it at

35:32

all. And it's kind

35:34

of understandable that they wouldn't be able to

35:36

see that because the language has changed so

35:38

much over time, it is now seen as

35:41

a freedom question and that advert

35:43

with the woman dancing in her pajamas, which

35:45

by the way, I thought was grotesque, it

35:48

was almost like a death cult image, you

35:50

know, dancing around and leaping up

35:52

and down at the thought of having the right to

35:54

die. Really such a

35:56

sign a warped sign of the

35:58

times. The euthanasia question

36:01

does need to be talked about because the

36:03

one thing that has struck me about this

36:05

issue over the years is that there

36:08

is a logic. The logic of

36:10

euthanasia exists in this discussion and

36:13

it might be hidden beneath all

36:15

the new terms. It might be hidden

36:17

beneath the adoption of the language of freedom and so

36:19

on, but it is still there and you will read

36:22

articles. I've read articles over the years which

36:24

make the case for its so-called assisted dying,

36:27

which talk about the aging

36:29

time bomb and which

36:31

talk about the fact that it costs eight

36:33

times as much to look after someone with

36:36

dementia as it does someone with heart disease

36:38

or whatever. People will bring

36:40

in these social stats. They will bring

36:42

in these medical stats as part of

36:44

their argument for why a speedier

36:46

end of life or a more peaceful end of

36:49

life is a good idea. This

36:53

issue is tied in lots

36:55

of ways to a depressive

36:58

social attitude, an

37:01

attitude which says, well maybe

37:03

it's better to bump

37:05

off the burdensome rather

37:07

than having to pay for this stuff. That really

37:10

does bring in the logic of euthanasia, doesn't it?

37:12

Yes, and this has always,

37:14

always been a conversation. This

37:16

lurks underneath the

37:18

whole discussion that we're having about

37:21

using all of this euphemistic language,

37:23

like for instance assisted dying.

37:26

Even euthanasia is of course good death. It

37:29

doesn't say anybody's doing killing. It should

37:31

really be either homicide or

37:34

suicide. At least that

37:36

language tells us that a

37:39

killing is occurring and I think

37:41

that's important, but it has always,

37:43

always been part of this discussion.

37:46

There was no such thing as assisted suicide

37:49

or assisted dying before the

37:51

1950s really. In

37:54

fact assisted suicide, the first time

37:56

I ever saw it was in

37:58

about 1950s. because people

38:01

didn't want to use euthanasia anymore, because

38:03

it was tainted by the

38:06

euthanasia employed by

38:08

the T4 Action Group in

38:10

Germany during the Second World War.

38:13

And of course, the whole

38:15

motivation of utility is

38:17

immediately behind the discussion

38:20

about, you know, it

38:22

makes a mockery of the discussion

38:24

of choice, because of course, it's

38:26

not really about choice. It's about,

38:28

in the end, and we're seeing

38:30

the evidence of this in Australia

38:33

and in Canada in particular, that

38:35

it is something that's being used

38:38

to get rid of people whose

38:40

lives are inconvenienced to

38:43

themselves and to others. And

38:46

so, for instance, there's been a

38:48

commission by an obscure Canadian government

38:52

department that actually looked

38:54

at how much it cost, how much

38:56

cost savings could be made with

38:59

their euthanasia program. And

39:02

it was approximately

39:04

$14,000 per patient. This

39:08

is just strictly in healthcare

39:10

terms. That doesn't

39:12

include, for instance, all the pensions,

39:15

housing, social care,

39:18

various different other costs that are

39:20

involved of

39:22

a person who is not productive

39:24

anymore in society. And

39:26

of course, they've done the maths and come up

39:28

with this $14,000 per patient. And

39:32

if in the track two, what's called

39:34

the track two, which includes people who

39:36

are not terminally ill,

39:39

the savings are $54,000 per person. And

39:43

so, this has been noticed, and you'll see

39:45

it come bubbling up, this whole discussion. It

39:48

came up with Matthew Paris in

39:50

the Times, I think, during the summer,

39:53

where he made the point that, you know, this

39:55

will come in because we can't afford to keep

39:57

these people alive. It came

40:00

up with... with a Belgian head

40:02

of the largest Belgian health

40:04

insurance group who said, we

40:06

need to encourage elderly people to go.

40:09

So this has always been under the

40:12

discussion. I always tell people, look, there

40:14

are people who are going for this

40:17

legislation, and mostly

40:19

they do it because they're compassionate and

40:21

they believe that this is a compassionate

40:23

thing to do. But lurking

40:25

underneath, the whole discussion

40:28

about assisted dying is the utility

40:30

argument and it's never gone away.

40:33

Hi, it's Brendan here. I want to let

40:35

you know some exciting news. My new book

40:37

is out now. It's called

40:39

After the Pogrom, 7th of October,

40:42

Israel and the Crisis of Civilization,

40:44

and it's available right now from

40:46

Amazon. I'm really proud of

40:48

this book. It is an unflinching account of how

40:50

the West failed the moral test of 7th of

40:52

October, 2023, which of course is

40:56

the day that Hamas and other

40:58

militants invaded Israel and unleashed barbarism.

41:00

The book documents in chilling detail

41:03

how activists, academics and others

41:05

in the West ended up making

41:07

excuses for Hamas's violence, ended up

41:09

taking the side of the pogromists

41:11

against the pogroms victims and ended

41:13

up in the process turning their

41:15

backs on the values of civilization.

41:18

The book is fundamentally a call to

41:20

arms for Western civilization. It makes the

41:23

case for restoring enlightenment values and standing

41:25

with Israel while it's under attack by

41:27

radical Islamists. I don't know if an

41:30

author is allowed to describe his own

41:32

book as essential reading, but I

41:34

really do think it's essential reading. It's

41:36

called After the Pogrom, 7th of October,

41:39

Israel and the Crisis of Civilization, and you

41:41

can get your copy right now on Amazon.

41:45

If you want a signed copy of the book

41:47

and why wouldn't you, you can get one by

41:49

donating £50 or more

41:51

to Spiked. Just go to

41:53

the Spiked website, look for the

41:55

donate button, donate today and you

41:57

will get a free signed book.

42:00

copy off after the pogrom, 7th

42:03

October, Israel and the crisis of

42:05

civilisation. Yeah, it

42:07

really is there all the time and

42:10

the logic of it just seeps through. I

42:12

always think it's useful when people like Matthew

42:14

Parris make those kinds of arguments because it

42:16

does draw to the surface, you know, the

42:18

truth of this issue. Okay, so

42:20

I want to dig into that question now a bit more

42:22

depth and I'm going to start by talking,

42:25

mentioning your book that you've

42:27

already mentioned which was called

42:29

Assisted Suicide the Liberal Humanist

42:31

Case Against Legalisation. That

42:33

was 2013, I was very

42:35

honoured to write the forward for that

42:37

book. Two words in that will leap

42:39

out at some people, which is the

42:41

words liberal and humanist because a lot

42:44

of the, there's been a

42:46

lot of hand-wringing over the past few

42:48

weeks with the terminally ill adults bill

42:50

going through the Commons about

42:53

the pesky problematic religious

42:55

people, the Christian funded groups who

42:57

are kicking up a fuss about

43:00

this legislation. And there

43:02

is this general idea out there, or

43:04

there's an idea in certain quarters that

43:06

if you're opposed to assisted

43:08

dying as it's been referred to, then

43:11

you must be a religious fruitcake. You

43:13

must be either a Christian guy or

43:15

a Muslim person. You must have some

43:17

kind of biblical or

43:20

Quranic reason to oppose such a good

43:23

useful piece of legislation.

43:26

Now, as it happens, I think it's perfectly

43:28

legitimate for people to make a religious case

43:30

against assisted dying. I don't have a problem

43:32

with that at all and I think a

43:34

lot of the arguments coming from religious figures

43:36

or religiously inclined figures are

43:38

very good solid arguments. But

43:42

you come at it from a non-religious

43:44

perspective. You're not a religious

43:47

person. You are an atheist.

43:49

I gather unless things have

43:51

changed since you're still an

43:53

atheist. You're a secularist,

43:56

you're a humanist, you're historically

43:59

a man. who comes from the left.

44:01

So you would not

44:03

be people's first vision of

44:05

the kind of person who opposes

44:07

assisted dying. So when

44:10

you say the liberal humanist case, what

44:12

encapsulates that for you? Do you think and do

44:14

you think it's different to the religious case or

44:17

are there are common themes between them? Well,

44:19

first of all, I think

44:22

it's used, the religious case

44:24

is used to discredit all

44:26

sorts of very legitimate arguments

44:28

against assisted suicide and assisted

44:31

dying, whatever you want to call it. So

44:34

for instance, Lord Faulconer attacked one of

44:36

the ministers who made a point about

44:38

this and said you should keep your

44:40

religious views to yourself, or you shouldn't

44:43

push your religious views on anybody

44:46

else. And the key thing is,

44:48

hey, she wasn't making a religious argument. She wasn't

44:50

saying God tells us, you know, she wasn't saying

44:52

in fact, she's Muslim. So she wasn't saying, look,

44:55

suicide is haram, so we can't have this.

44:58

She wasn't making those points. And

45:00

it's a real attack on religious

45:03

people, and particularly Christians are the

45:06

ones who bear the brunt of this.

45:08

And I work with many Christians and

45:10

they're forever so defensive. It just annoys

45:13

me, because I think for goodness sake,

45:15

don't hide your light under a bushel.

45:18

Be proud of what you are.

45:21

There's no problem there. I don't have

45:23

a big prejudice against Christians. They

45:25

even tolerate me. They tell me, at one meeting

45:27

I go to, they give a prayer at the

45:29

beginning, and they always apologize. And I go, why

45:32

would you apologize? You know, the worst that

45:35

a prayer is to me is good thoughts.

45:38

That's not very offensive to me. And

45:41

one irritation about this whole

45:43

thing is that, for

45:46

instance, if Lord Falconer was back

45:48

200 years, he would

45:50

be attacking William Wilber for us,

45:52

presumably, for his religious reasons, for

45:54

opposing slavery, which is

45:56

ridiculous, of course, when you look at it. They were

45:58

perfectly good. reasons for

46:00

opposing slavery, and religious people and

46:03

secular people agreed on that. And

46:05

it's exactly the same with assisted

46:08

suicide. And I think, you know,

46:11

yes, I'm an atheist, but

46:13

I think there's also something

46:15

that is talked about by

46:17

the French sociologist Durkheim, who

46:20

makes a point about the cult

46:22

of man, which I think is a really

46:24

good kind of idea. It's saying

46:27

that, you know, an atheist should

46:29

have humanity as

46:31

his sort of holy

46:34

or, you know, religious

46:36

icon, I suppose. And

46:39

if you do, and this is why Durkheim really

46:41

opposed suicide

46:44

because he said we cannot

46:46

tolerate this if we are

46:48

to regard human lives as

46:50

something sacred, which I think,

46:52

sacrality can still come

46:54

into a sort of

46:56

atheistic perspective. Not all will agree with

46:59

me on that, but that's okay. And

47:02

so yes, I still feel like the

47:04

liberal humanist that I was when

47:06

I wrote that book or when I used to

47:09

campaign for abortion rights actively

47:11

in the 1980s. And

47:14

one thing that I

47:16

was very pleased to see is

47:18

that Anne Farady, who

47:20

is will be known to I think

47:22

you may have had her on

47:24

your show, but anyway, she's known to many

47:26

readers or listeners as

47:30

somebody who fights very vociferously for

47:32

abortion rights and was head of

47:34

the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. And

47:37

she is against now,

47:39

this bill and assisted suicide. I

47:41

think there are many, many different

47:44

people who I could point to

47:46

who are secularist, Ian Burrell, the

47:48

columnist, Liz Carr, the disabled actor

47:50

who was fairly prominent. I

47:53

have many, many people who I

47:55

know who are atheists and who

47:57

are appalled by this bill.

48:00

cult in general by assisted

48:02

suicide. Absolutely. I know many

48:04

too and there's a lot of them

48:06

out there. Okay,

48:09

I want to come back to the cult of

48:11

man in a minute because I think that's a

48:14

really important rallying cry actually, but I just

48:16

want to ask you one specific thing in

48:18

relation to this current bill

48:21

and the other acts of law

48:23

around the world. I've

48:25

heard you deal with this question before, but I would

48:27

like you to do it now on the podcast as

48:29

well, which is in people

48:31

will often say to you, okay, you have

48:34

a problem with some of this legislation. You

48:36

have a problem with the fact that people who

48:39

are not necessarily who are not terminally ill

48:41

are being encapsulated into it and are being

48:43

permitted to die or allowed to kill themselves.

48:47

But what about the 89

48:49

year old woman? She is

48:51

on death's door. She might

48:53

have three days left to live

48:55

48 hours left to live.

48:58

We all have been in

49:00

situations like that, or we all

49:02

will be in situations like that.

49:04

And for a long time in

49:07

the era of modern medicine, that

49:09

period of life has often been

49:11

ushered to a close and it's

49:13

tended to be done quite quietly.

49:15

You know, the woman's son

49:17

might say to the doctor, look, can you just

49:19

can you put her out of her misery?

49:21

And it's really is in those last days and

49:23

hours of life that that tends to happen. That's

49:26

not something you would be opposed to,

49:29

is it? And, and I guess the

49:31

broader question is, isn't there

49:33

a possibility that this legalization

49:36

of assisted dying might

49:38

actually make those kinds

49:40

of situations more difficult because it

49:43

would draw them into the legalistic

49:45

realm where they've tended to take place in

49:47

a more private sphere? Well,

49:50

precisely. I think that's absolutely right.

49:52

First of all, yes, I don't,

49:54

I'm not, you know, if we

49:56

call that assisted dying and everything

49:59

after that. assisted suicide, something

50:01

kind of posed the

50:04

whole idea of it. But I do

50:06

think it's exceptional. First of all, most

50:08

deaths are peaceful. That's the good news,

50:11

is that the vast majority of deaths

50:13

are peaceful. However, I have

50:16

attended one death in

50:18

my experience, which

50:21

wasn't peaceful, and which, if I'm honest,

50:23

I would say the last week of

50:25

that life was

50:28

not worth having. But the doctor, of

50:30

course, wouldn't do anything about it, because

50:32

there's so much, as you say, a

50:36

legal spotlight on this issue just because

50:38

it's been raised. So doctors

50:40

are very afraid to do anything

50:42

about these kind of situations. There

50:45

was, of course, the very famous death of

50:47

George VI, who died in 1935,

50:51

if I'm getting my numbers right. There

50:53

was a charge of it. Anyway, one

50:56

of those charges had died in 1935. You

51:00

wouldn't think I was a historian, would you? And

51:03

it was dispatched a

51:05

little bit early by his

51:08

physician who admitted it under

51:12

Parliament, under, of course, parliamentary

51:14

privilege, and you can't be

51:16

sentenced for something you're admitted

51:18

by in Parliament. So basically,

51:20

he was dispatched

51:23

early because he was in great

51:26

distress, but also

51:28

because they

51:30

wanted the morning papers to

51:32

get the news first, and not the

51:34

evening papers, which I found interesting.

51:37

Nobody liked Standard then. And people

51:41

may not like it now, I don't know. I'm

51:43

not living in London anymore. But basically, yes,

51:46

this occurred, as you say, many

51:49

times, and

51:51

it was not uncommon. There is a little

51:53

bit of mythology to it in that, yes,

51:56

you can actually give a huge

51:58

overdose of... morphine,

52:00

and that can have that effect.

52:03

But I know, medic

52:06

friends of mine who say it's actually

52:08

very difficult to dispatch a patient with

52:12

just a little too much morphine.

52:14

Basically, what happens is the patient

52:16

dies. And so they find

52:18

morphine, they go, ah, the morphine has done it.

52:21

Whereas, as my friend says, well, if they had a

52:23

cup of tea before then, you wouldn't

52:26

say, well, the cup of tea did it, just

52:28

after a death. So I'm not absolutely

52:31

convinced that that's the

52:33

case. But yes, doctors can speed things

52:35

along. And in fact,

52:37

if you have a reasonably private

52:39

situation about a

52:41

death, and deaths should be, I think, a

52:46

private family and close

52:49

friends matter rather than a sort of public

52:51

spectacle. And if you don't

52:54

shine the legal spotlight on it, then

52:56

it allows doctors to take humane

52:59

actions in the very last hours

53:02

and days of life. So

53:04

yes, I completely agree with you there.

53:06

I think the legal spotlight will not

53:08

help matters will probably even create

53:11

more suffering than it alleviates. Yeah,

53:14

it's always struck me that the

53:17

problem with the assisted suicide issue is that

53:19

it makes things harder

53:21

for people who want to live. And it makes

53:23

things harder for people who might need to die

53:25

in the sense that, you know,

53:27

puts this great pressure on people who to

53:29

conceive of themselves as a burden, whether as

53:31

a social burden or a medical burden or

53:34

a family burden, and maybe to

53:36

take that exit that's been opened up to them by

53:38

the state, and those who

53:40

might need to be helped along because they

53:42

are in the last hours, it's unbearable, some

53:44

variable for them is unbearable for the family,

53:46

it makes that quite

53:49

natural part of death more difficult to

53:51

by dragging it into the kind of

53:53

legal spectacle, as you say, so it's

53:56

a lose lose situation, I think these these new

53:59

forms of legislation. observation. To wind up, I want

54:01

to talk to you, I guess,

54:03

about the cult of man, which I

54:05

would stand shoulder to shoulder with you as part of

54:07

the cult of man. I think maybe we should set

54:10

one up. Because

54:12

it does strike me that, you know,

54:14

and this is not necessarily a quantifiable

54:16

observation, but it seems to me undeniable

54:19

that there is a link, there's a

54:22

bond between society's growing

54:24

loss of faith in

54:27

humankind as a species, and

54:30

the growing attraction of the so called

54:32

right to die. So, you know,

54:35

from the idea that all these old people

54:38

are a problem, all these old people are

54:40

a burden, and it's so tiresome to have

54:42

to look after these people who've got severe

54:44

disabilities or dementia or whatever else it

54:47

might be. It seems that

54:49

that is quite clearly tied to the

54:51

idea that the world is

54:53

overpopulated, we're a bit of a

54:55

plague, we're causing climate change, the

54:57

planet's going to end if we

54:59

don't get our act together. There

55:01

is this increasingly anti

55:04

humanist outlook at

55:06

large in the world in

55:08

certain political quarters, at least. So

55:11

to what extent would you see the,

55:14

I guess the rehabilitation of

55:16

the logic of euthanasia, if

55:19

we're going to be really brutally honest about

55:21

it? To what extent do you see that

55:23

as an extension of these kind of social

55:26

views, these political views that humankind is

55:29

a bit of a plague on the

55:31

planet, a bit of a pest, a

55:33

bit of annoyance, there are too many of

55:35

us, we're getting too old, we're living too

55:37

long. Is there a connection between

55:40

these things? Do you think? Absolutely.

55:42

And if you look at one of the

55:44

biggest, one of the most

55:46

prominent people pushing both euthanasia,

55:49

euthanasia is also a

55:51

big animal rights person.

55:53

So Peter Singer, who

55:55

is very famous for writing Animal

55:58

Liberation. He's not

56:00

actually in favor of animal rights, but

56:02

he writes animal liberation. And

56:04

he is also very in favor of euthanasia. And

56:07

he makes the point that in

56:09

some ways, Gorilla

56:12

has more humanity, which is an

56:14

interesting idea, than

56:16

a profoundly disabled

56:18

person. So I

56:20

think there is a metaphor of assisted

56:23

suicide in that many people want to

56:26

put humanity out of its misery. And

56:29

this is replicated on a

56:32

small basis that, you know,

56:34

why should we have these people who are

56:36

simply burdens? And it resonates

56:38

with the idea that humanity is a

56:41

burden on this planet. So

56:43

why shouldn't we self eradicate? In

56:46

fact, I have discussions, well,

56:49

I've stopped them because they're just

56:51

too annoying, with people who they

56:53

think that human beings

56:55

should annihilate themselves and that the planet

56:58

would be improved by

57:01

annihilating human beings altogether.

57:03

Not surprisingly, they're very,

57:05

very in favor

57:07

of euthanasia. As I

57:09

say, it's a tiny little group. But

57:13

again, I've had, I run into these people

57:16

once in a while, my usual approach is

57:18

to say, well, you know, start this off.

57:21

You go first after you, but

57:23

they never take up my challenge

57:26

with that. And they seem to

57:28

be the ones preaching for other

57:30

people to die, rather than the

57:32

people that want to show a

57:35

very good example and

57:37

jump off that cliff first. I

57:39

think that's the voluntary human extinction movement.

57:42

I mean, on one level, you're

57:44

right, they're a tiny, fringe, cranky

57:46

outfit and probably just something

57:49

to be laughed at. But they do

57:51

encapsulate a broader idea

57:53

these days, which is, you know, wouldn't it be better

57:56

if we'd never had the Industrial Revolution and

57:59

grown from... know half a billion people

58:01

to eight billion. I mean the logic

58:03

of the kind of thing those people say is

58:06

there in the kind of mainstream discussion

58:09

as well. Yes, I don't think, I

58:11

think it's no coincidence, or it is

58:13

a coincidence, it's not

58:16

a coincidence, sorry, that the

58:18

leader of the Green Party UK is

58:20

one of the key sponsors of Kim

58:22

Ledbeter's bill. Absolutely, not a

58:25

coincidence at all, I would say. Okay,

58:27

Kevin, my last question for you is

58:31

there are many things I appreciate about the work you

58:33

do and the writing that you've done and especially

58:36

the pieces you've written for Spike for a

58:38

long time. But another reason

58:40

is that you introduced me to G.K.

58:44

Chesterton's views on suicide

58:46

and I cannot tell you how many

58:48

times I've quoted this at people or

58:50

sent it to people. So

58:53

Chesterton famously said that suicide is

58:55

the ultimate evil, the absolute

58:57

evil. Now people can use

59:00

the word evil or bulk up the word evil, that's up to

59:02

them. But he made this point that the

59:05

man who kills a man just kills

59:07

a man. Whereas the man who kills

59:10

himself kills all men. He

59:12

wipes out the world, he refuses to

59:14

live for other people, for the world

59:16

itself. It's such a striking

59:19

observation and one that runs so wonderfully

59:21

counter, I think, to the culture that

59:23

we currently live in. So to end

59:26

the discussion, I

59:28

just wanted to ask you what

59:31

is the best way to counter some of

59:33

these depressive trends? And that goes across the

59:35

board. Assisted dying, I

59:37

think, is one of them, as you've just outlined

59:39

very well there. But there are

59:41

others too. How can

59:43

we make a pro-life argument? And I

59:46

don't mean that in relation to the

59:48

abortion discussion, I mean that in relation

59:50

to a view

59:53

of the world and a view of

59:55

our place in the world that values

59:57

the human contribution, that values human life

59:59

itself. and which values all

1:00:01

forms of human life, even

1:00:03

those that are quite difficult, even those

1:00:05

that might seem strange

1:00:08

or hard to some of us who are

1:00:10

not experienced them. What's the best way to

1:00:12

counter these depressive trends and make the case

1:00:15

for human life itself? Well,

1:00:18

I have found that in this discussion

1:00:20

in particular, that that's probably the very

1:00:22

best way of bringing up points, bringing

1:00:25

up the whole point about cult

1:00:27

of humanity, as we should probably call it

1:00:29

rather than cult of man. And

1:00:35

basically thinking

1:00:37

about all of the positive aspects

1:00:40

of other people's lives and what

1:00:42

they mean to us, and

1:00:44

the whole conception

1:00:47

that John Dunn

1:00:49

talked about some 400 years

1:00:51

ago, Ask

1:00:53

Not For Whom The Bell Tolls, for

1:00:55

the sort of sentiments

1:00:58

encapsulated in that. I think this

1:01:00

discussion actually in a sort of

1:01:02

negative way at least brings

1:01:04

forward the positive aspects of the

1:01:06

lives of others. And I tend

1:01:09

to find that people have

1:01:11

at least a moral

1:01:14

sense that's lurking

1:01:16

behind, that cannot, can actually be brought

1:01:18

out by this

1:01:20

discussion, and that they appreciate because

1:01:24

it's put so starkly with this

1:01:26

discussion, they appreciate that other people's

1:01:28

existences matter not simply to

1:01:30

themselves but to all of us, and

1:01:33

underline really the point that

1:01:35

G.K. Chesterton makes, that

1:01:37

it is a terrible act to destroy

1:01:39

the entire world by destroying yourself, by

1:01:42

giving up on the world, by leaving

1:01:45

it, by not

1:01:48

feeling no compulsion

1:01:50

to live in

1:01:52

order to, for other people. So

1:01:55

I think this discussion, I know that sounds

1:01:57

a bit trite, but I think at least,

1:02:00

in a sort of whole or negative way,

1:02:03

it actually can bring

1:02:05

out the essence of humanity

1:02:07

and why we should fight for

1:02:09

it. Kevin, thank you very much. Thank

1:02:12

you. Thank

1:02:19

you for listening to The Brendan O'Neill Show.

1:02:21

We'll be back with another guest and more

1:02:23

discussion. Don't forget to

1:02:25

subscribe, and in the meantime, keep

1:02:28

reading Spiked at www.spiked-online.com.

1:02:35

On November 7th, Thundercat, Kerasoft, and Avidia

1:02:37

teamed up to host a discussion with

1:02:40

leading government panelists to speak on best

1:02:42

practices and challenges agencies are facing with

1:02:44

AI. Learn how we can plan to

1:02:47

navigate complex policy landscapes, assess agency needs,

1:02:49

and contribute to shaping the future of

1:02:51

AI applications in the government. You can

1:02:54

now tune in to the conversation on

1:02:56

the Feds at the Edge podcast streaming

1:02:58

on all major platforms. thundercattech.com/events for more

1:03:01

info. That's thundercattech.com/events. Upgrade

1:03:06

your closet with Black Friday and

1:03:08

Cybersale deals on made-to-measure pieces from

1:03:10

Indochino, including shirts from just $49

1:03:13

and custom suits starting at $329,

1:03:15

only from

1:03:17

November 18th to December 8th

1:03:19

at indochino.com. Experience

1:03:22

the magic of the holidays at

1:03:24

the Bull Run Festival of Lights,

1:03:27

Northern Virginia's largest drive-through light show,

1:03:29

ooh and aah through the winter

1:03:31

wonderland where it's always snowing and

1:03:34

see the tallest light display yet.

1:03:36

Make the holidays just a little

1:03:38

bit brighter when you visit the

1:03:40

Bull Run Festival of Lights. Purchase

1:03:43

tickets today at bullrunfestivaloflights.com. Visit January

1:03:45

2nd through 5th and save $10

1:03:47

with promo code IHeart10. That's bullrunfestivaloflights.com.