|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
“The evidence available proves conclusively that schemes such as the one which the House of Commons has approved for the UK have absolutely nothing to do with providing dying patients with a pain free and dignified death … but are designed to satisfy three needs: to cut the size of the population, to save money and to provide a steady supply of healthy organs (such as hearts, kidneys, lungs and liver) for transplantation into selected recipients.”—Dr. Jack King
The above is an extract from Dr. Jack King’s new book which is now available for purchase. Last week Dr. Vernon Coleman said that, with the permission of Dr. King, he would be publishing extracts from the book this week. The following is the first part.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Note from Vernon Coleman
With Dr. Jack King’s permission, I am publishing extracts from his new book `Anyone who tells you that doctor-assisted suicide is always dignified and painless is lying. Here’s the proof’ which has just been published and should be available on Amazon.
Dr. King’s new book is the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia ever published, and it will no doubt be suppressed, ignored or attacked by reviewers who haven’t read it. Please encourage everyone you know to read and share these extracts and then to buy copies of Dr. King’s book to send to members of the House of Lords (who will decide, probably on 14 September whether doctor assisted suicide is to become legal in the UK), to MPs (who have already voted in favour of the new Bill but who will in due course have another chance to vote) and to journalists. The price of the paperback version of this book includes no royalties for Dr. King.
If enough readers help and send copies to members of the House of Lords, we can defeat this Bill. But if not, then I fear that the Bill will go through and life will never be the same again. Those who have falsely claimed that doctor-assisted suicide is always painless and dignified will win. And the euthanasia legislation will go through. It will never be repealed and within five years, the British State will be legally able to kill anyone who is disabled, old, poor, unemployed and depressed. They’ll kill children, too. Look back over the years and you will see, I am afraid, that my predictions have been uncannily accurate about covid and many other things. I fear I’m right about this, too. If you don’t fight this Bill, then you will have no reason to complain when those you love become victims.
You should be able to buy a copy of `Anyone who tells you doctor-assisted suicide is always dignified and painless is lying: Here’s the proof’ by Dr. Jack King, if you go to the Amazon website (CLICK HERE). Of course, there is always a chance that it will have mysteriously become “currently unavailable.”
Vernon Coleman 2025
‘Anyone who tells you that doctor-assisted suicide is always dignified and painless is lying: Here’s the proof’ by Dr. Jack King
Whether you call it ‘doctor assisted suicide’, ‘doctor assisted dying’, ‘assisted dying’ or ‘euthanasia’ doesn’t matter. The fact is that ‘death by doctor’ is being promoted world-wide, and although the process always begins with some restrictions, it does not take long before it is being freely recommended to the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled, the poor, the unemployed – and to children.
In every country where death by doctor has been introduced, the parameters for inclusion in the scheme have been extended very widely and remarkably quickly, and the number of individuals being killed has risen dramatically until it has become a significant percentage of the total number of deaths.
The world-wide introduction of doctor assisted suicide or euthanasia (in practical terms there is little or no difference) is a symptom of something far more serious – the division of human beings into ‘useful’ and ‘useless’ and the promotion of collectivism over individualism.
The evidence available proves conclusively that schemes such as the one which the House of Commons has approved for the UK have absolutely nothing to do with providing dying patients with a pain free and dignified death (and as I will show in this book, ‘doctor assisted suicide’ most certainly does not do this) but are designed to satisfy three needs: to cut the size of the population, to save money and to provide a steady supply of healthy organs (such as hearts, kidneys, lungs and liver) for transplantation into selected recipients.
The problems with euthanasia are legion. It definitely isn’t painless and it definitely isn’t fast. Amazingly, there is still no preferred, defined way to kill people and there is no humane, optimum method of ending a patient’s life. (Considering that doctors seem to kill people by accident quite easily, and that doctors are now recognised as being one of the three main causes of death and arguably the single most significant cause of death, you would think, would you not, that they’d be able to work out how to do it deliberately.)
Medicine cannot promise an easy death, and campaigners who think that patients can be given a pill and die quickly, quietly and with dignity are living in cloud cuckoo land. Scores of papers have been published to examine what is happening, and there is absolutely no consensus on the best way to kill a patient even when they want to be killed. Even the BBC, an established voice for the establishment, has reported that in at least 20% of cases the would-be suicide will not have an easy death. Medication doesn’t work as expected in 16% of cases and in another 7% of cases there are technical problems or unexpected side effects. A report in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that doctors felt compelled to intervene in 18% of cases. Most politicians and journalists have no idea just how difficult it can be to kill someone, and those campaigning on behalf of euthanasia programmes sometimes seem determined to suppress the very inconvenient and uncomfortable truth about just how inefficient and traumatic death by doctor often turns out to be. A doctor at Yale University School of Medicine concluded that the truth about euthanasia ‘will come as a shock to the many members of the public – including legislators and even some physicians – who have never considered that the procedures involved in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia might sometimes add to the suffering they are meant to alleviate.’
When barbiturates are used, death results slowly from asphyxia due to cardiorespiratory depression. Injections given by a doctor (which can hardly be described as suicide) usually involve a general anaesthetic and a neuromuscular block. Some doctors prefer to tell patients to breathe in helium and, as a result, to die of hypoxia. Scores of different drugs, in many different combinations, are used. I wonder how many of those promoting or supporting the Bill have real, practical, relevant experience of the procedures involved. Very few, I suspect.
The startling truth is that doctor assisted suicide hasn’t been devised as an add-on extra to existing medical care but as an alternative to medical care. Some of those promoting the scheme must know that the demand for euthanasia will increase as medical care becomes worse and waiting lists get longer – both things which are happening very rapidly. The slow, deliberately orchestrated demise of the NHS means that millions of patients in the UK will die before they receive the treatment they need, and it is difficult to avoid the fear that this is being done deliberately to push people into choosing the cheaper alternative of doctor assisted suicide.
In other countries where euthanasia has been introduced, the waiting time for treatment is rising while the waiting time for euthanasia is falling.
Medical culture has become opposed to dignity, equality, respect, morality, decency and any sense of vocation. Traditional values of caring and kindness have been removed from medical culture, and introducing doctor assisted suicide will eradicate them entirely, completely destroying what is left of the relationship between doctors and patients.
Many of the world’s most notable hospitals began life as monasteries, and it is extraordinary to see how far down they have sunk from the Christian ideal of caring. The good of individual patients has been abandoned by the determination to care for the larger community – collectivism has led to concern moving from the rights of the individual to concern with the ‘greater good’.
Traditional medical ethics has become as outdated as buggy whips or spats. There are big pressures to use fewer resources on caring for the weak, the frail and the long-term sick. As a result, funding for the care of the sick and the elderly has been cut to the bone, and Government policies mean that hospices and care homes struggle to survive.
Paternalism and condescension are common among those making decisions about the value of life and are particularly common among those promoting euthanasia. Doctors now argue that living human beings can be killed for their vital organs. Those who believe that it is acceptable for individuals to be killed to provide organs argue that the problem faced by organ transplant surgeons is that many of the bodies available for harvesting purposes are too old to be really valuable. A 20-year-old heart, kidney or lung is much more useful than an 80-year-old heart, kidney and lung. Encouraging young people (particularly those who are physically healthy but mentally ill) to volunteer for doctor assisted suicide will provide an endless supply of young organs in excellent condition – perfect for transplantation into the bodies of selected recipients.
Medicine, in bondage to the drug industry, has lost touch with the science upon which it is supposedly based, but it has also lost touch with the fundamental principle of nursing and caring. Hospitals have abandoned the principle of caring and patients are the worse for it. The concept of human dignity has been condemned as an attempt to impose religious beliefs onto medicine when in truth dignity was, in the beginning, one of the forces driving medical progress. In medical and nursing schools it is now widely argued that compassion and caring have no part to play in health care. Medicine has suppressed hope and replaced it with the idea that patients must always be told the blunt truth – however much harm this may do. There is good anecdotal evidence that many patients lived much longer when they didn’t know what was really wrong with them. Susan Hill, the writer, tells how her mother was told she had ‘ulcers’. She had a kidney, a large section of bowel and bladder and her uterus removed. The surgeon told Ms Hill’s mother that she would get well and she did – enjoying three years of excellent health. And then a friend referred to the illness by name. Susan Hill said that her mother was horrified and ‘shrivelled and died in eight weeks’. A doctor who works a good deal with cancer patients said this: ‘Tell the patient the truth, but only as much as they can bear and never, ever, remove hope.’
Euthanasia is built upon the idea that it is possible to tell when a patient is terminally ill. But this is a fallacy. I could fill London with people who have been told to prepare themselves for death but who have lived for many years. The advocates for euthanasia assume that it is possible to decide that an illness is fatal but anyone (doctor or nurse) who announces that an illness is fatal is a fool.
I doubt if I am alone in having seen patients who have been told that they were incurable, recover and enjoy long lives – not uncommonly outliving the physician who had told them they were dying. Diagnostic errors are nowhere near as rare as doctors would like to imagine. Dr Vernon Coleman reports that when he was in his early 40s, he was wrongly diagnosed with kidney cancer and given six months to live. That was nearly 40 years ago.
Politicians and ignorant campaigners seem to assume that it is possible to predict when a patient is going to die. It isn’t. Very occasionally, a patient will conveniently die as predicted but this, I suspect, is more due to the voodoo or negative placebo factor than due to any brilliance on the part of the forecaster. Doctors, like witch doctors, can have a powerful influence on the outcome of an illness if they give a patient a firm and professional sounding prognosis. In other words, if a doctor says to a patient: ‘You will be dead in six months’ there is a chance that the patient will be dead in six months because the doctor said so. It is relatively rare for patients to die before a forecasting doctor suggests but it is common for patients to live considerably longer.
Selecting a patient as suitable for euthanasia on the basis of a prognosis is always dangerous and unjustifiable. The fact is that when doctors decide that someone is terminally ill they are voicing an opinion not a firm diagnosis. I don’t think anyone has ever examined terminal diagnoses to see how accurate they were. Doctors wouldn’t like that because they would have to admit that they got things wrong a good deal of the time.
Patients often get better when they are abandoned but they get better despite the medical profession rather than because of it. Patients who use alternative therapies are always described as ‘just lucky’ and said to have got better despite their treatment. In contrast, of course, patients who get better after surgery or drugs are always said to have got better because of their treatment. Examples of mistaken diagnoses and erroneous prognoses are not difficult to find. A 45-year-old mother of two was told that she had an inoperable tumour on her liver. With no family present she was told that she had between two months and two years to live. (How any doctor can offer such a bizarre prognosis is difficult to understand.) In fact she had a benign liver tumour. She was not told of the error for a month. It was a year before the woman had recovered from the trauma of the mistaken diagnosis. But what if she had been persuaded to accept euthanasia?
Another woman who was told that she had terminal cancer was found to be suffering from sarcoidosis. Once again a wrong diagnosis had been made and this time the patient was treated with toxic chemotherapy and subjected to frequent CT scans and medical reviews. The mistaken diagnosis was maintained for four years.
A third woman who had a history of breast cancer was told that the cancer had returned and had spread to her lungs. She underwent treatment, including radiotherapy. After five years of believing that she could die at any moment, the woman was told that the hospital had made a mistake and that she actually had bronchiectasis.
A 51-year-old man was told that he had advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). A second doctor agreed with the diagnosis which had been made on the basis of a 10 minute examination. The man was told that he would never return to work and would soon be unable to walk. He was contacted by a therapist regarding medically assisted death and began to plan music for his funeral. The man closed his business and told his friends and family the terrible news. He was told that he would not live until the following Christmas. Eventually the man saw a third doctor who told him that he had been misdiagnosed and actually had neuropathy caused by his diabetes.
A 65-year-old man was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease and told that he was terminally ill with just six months to live. He was told to choose a hospice. He later found that his symptoms were actually caused by the statins he was taking. When he’d been told he was terminally ill he stopped the statins and his symptoms disappeared.
In his late 80s, a man was diagnosed with lung cancer because shadows were seen on a chest X-ray. In reality the shadows on his lung had been caused over 60 years earlier by tuberculosis – which had never caused him any symptoms or signs of illness.
These case histories are by no means unusual. In countries where assisted killing is in place there will, without doubt, be instances where misdiagnosed patients will choose or accept euthanasia and will die quite unnecessarily.
One of the main objections to capital punishment (a process which often takes many years and repeated examinations of the evidence) is the fear that a mistake will be made and an innocent person will be killed. The same objection can and should be raised about medically assisted dying.
Doctors and politicians claim the mentally and physically disabled do not benefit from their lives and do not deserve a share of the nation’s financial resources. As a result, the frail and elderly are often denied eye care, dental care and simple, basic medical care. Patients with dementia are dismissed as non- productive, not self-aware, not rational and not capable of looking after themselves and therefore regarded as (and treated as) non persons with little relevance and no rights. (In his book Dementia Myth Dr Vernon Coleman explains why many patients who have been diagnosed as suffering from dementia have been misdiagnosed and are curable.)
Philosophers have frequently added to the debate by claiming that people with dementia have no right to life-sustaining health care because they are not truly human. It does not seem to concern them that this is a very slippery road to take. If you pick on the demented or the disabled where do you stop? The unemployed? The poor? The homeless? The retired? For the record these are all categories who have been targeted by suicide programmes in other countries. (Philosophers looking for something to think about might ask whether anyone who decides they want to kill themselves is, by definition, mentally ill and therefore unable to make a decision about killing themselves.)
The attitude of some of those campaigning for ‘doctor assisted suicide’ is that those who aren’t like us don’t count as people. It should be noted that in the Netherlands, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have long been available, a doctor who euthanized a patient with dementia, against the patient’s will, was found not guilty of murder. The patient had requested doctor assisted suicide but changed her mind and said she no longer wanted to die. The doctor and the patient’s husband ignored the patient’s views and put a deadly drug into the woman’s coffee and killed her anyway. The court acquitted the doctor of a crime and the new code reads: ‘it is not necessary for the doctor to agree with the patient the time and manner in which euthanasia will be given’.
How long will it be before individuals can kill off their relatives because they think they are a burden?
In countries where versions of euthanasia are available, more and more disabled individuals and their relatives report that they are being approached by medical staff (and sometimes by strangers ) asking why they haven’t considered euthanasia. One man asked a father who was out with his disabled daughter why he didn’t have her euthanized. The girl understood the question and asked why the stranger wanted her dead. Is that really the way we want our world to be? It is alarming that people trying to tell the truth about doctor assisted suicide are suppressed, marginalised and lied about. Who is really making the decisions about the direction in which our society travels? Why does no one talking about euthanizing the disabled ever mention hugely successful and influential disabled individuals such as Stephen Hawking?
The world is becoming very scary for anyone with imperfect health. In the US, the State of California is under pressure to euthanize patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In the UK, patients in care homes and hospitals are over-medicated with drugs to keep them docile and in less need of care. Many, of course, are regularly murdered with kill shots of a benzodiazepine and morphine. There is, by the way, evidence that doctors and nurses who work in countries where doctor assisted suicide is legal are far more likely to decide to kill patients who are demented or simply described as being a nuisance in some way.
This philosophy of regarding the physically and mentally disabled as less than human has already spread to dismiss the value of anyone who is frail or disabled or even just elderly. Doctors (and judges) make their decisions today based on whether in their view the underlying condition ‘may make it difficult or impossible for (him or her) to enjoy the benefits that continued life brings’. (That’s a quote from an English judge.) The arrogance is breathtaking and opposition is scarce and usually short lived. (In Germany, Dr Nikolaus Haas, who specialises in paediatric intensive care, has said: ‘Because of our history in Germany, we’ve learned that there are some things you just don’t do with severely handicapped children. A society must be prepared to look after these severely handicapped children and not decide that life support has to be withdrawn against the will of the parents’.)
Patients who for some reason need any type of help and support are often encouraged to believe that their lives are not worth living. In Oregon, Canada, the loss of autonomy is the number one reason why people request assisted suicide. Over 90% of patients give this their reason for applying for suicide. In the UK, Kim Leadbeater MP suggested that patients who felt that they were a burden would be good candidates for doctor assisted suicide.
Disabled patients prefer length of life to quality of life but doctors are frequently surprised by this and will, as a result, be quick to recommend doctor assisted suicide as a ‘solution’.
We are none of us autonomous these days, though we usually like to think we are. We are all dependent upon others and we are all at the mercy of many individuals and groups.
Today, the real tragedy is that medicine has abandoned the treatment of the patient as a whole human being (there was a brief flirtation with the idea of holistic medicine in an attempt to counteract this but the flirtation is over). Medicine has become irretrievably committed to the idea of collectivism and the health of the community rather than the individual. Anyone deemed ‘defective’ in any way will be selected for death. What is destined to start out as voluntary will end with patients being persuaded and then coerced into accepting an early death. And then doctor assisted suicide will become mandatory.
Time and time again evidence appears showing that medicine has lost touch with the basic principles of caring. In America, new rules allow staff working in Veterans Affairs hospitals to refuse to treat unmarried veterans or Democrats.
Moreover, medical practice has been increasingly split into specialities and sub-specialities, and nurse training has been changed to direct nurses away from caring and towards being second rate doctors instead of first rate nurses.
Euthanasia Bills being introduced around the world have nothing to do with kindness or compassion but are part of a cold-blooded plan to save money (through less caring and far fewer pension payments) and to provide organs for transplantation. And once we realise that those promoting doctor assisted suicide are lying about the alleged, fundamental benefits of the process they are selling, it becomes essential to look for the real reasons behind this global movement. (And it is important to remember that the move towards euthanasia is a global movement). Bills making euthanasia legal will expand their remit, and the demand for suicide will rise as decent palliative care becomes harder to find and as care homes and hospitals become increasingly dangerous and uncaring places. (The reduction in the availability of palliative care and hospices is a consequence of the increased availability of suicide as an option.)
And there are, we must remember, three main reasons for the introduction of doctor assisted suicide. First, it will help save governments vast amounts of money that would otherwise have to be spent on caring and on pensions. Second, by encouraging young people to kill themselves it will provide a plentiful harvest of organs for transplantation. Third, allowing people to choose to end their lives fits neatly into the widely held but false belief that our planet is overcrowded and that the global population must be reduced.
Note: Please CLICK HERE to purchase a paperback copy of Jack King’s new book.
About Dr. Vernon Coleman
Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc practised medicine for ten years. He has been a full-time professional author for over 30 years. He is a novelist and campaigning writer and has written many non-fiction books. He has written over 100 books which have been translated into 22 languages. On his website, HERE, there are hundreds of articles which are free to read. Since mid-December 2024, Dr. Coleman has also been publishing articles on Substack; you can subscribe to and follow him on Substack HERE.
There are no ads, no fees and no requests for donations on Dr. Coleman’s website or videos. He pays for everything through book sales. If you want to help finance his work, please just buy a book – there are over 100 books by Vernon Coleman in print on Amazon.
Featured image: Campaigners near Parliament Square against the proposed bill to legalise assisted dying, on 16 October 2024 in London, England. Source: Getty Images
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: UK News
… shocking intentions… see Ivan Illich – Wikipedia https://share.google/VKeNfEm0wRUyU1uAm and Iatrogenesis – Wikipedia https://share.google/GwWGIK4c9GDqenKMG …
…shocking are their lethal intentions… see Ivan Illich – Wikipedia https://share.google/VKeNfEm0wRUyU1uAm. and Iatrogenesis – Wikipedia https://share.google/GwWGIK4c9GDqenKMG …my earlier comment, more or less the same isn’t registered Rhoda?! … 🙏➕🙏…
The latest WHO ICD11 has over 100 International Classification of Disease.
It is now apparant that should be updated to include Death By Doctor Assisted Suicide DAS as ICD11 U.999 DAS
A world where no one is wanted if they are not workingm or as a burden on society.
Indeed where overpopulaion is causing incapacity infrastructure overload on utilites; HNS, Housig. Roads, sewers, Water supply that requires Governments to rduce population “By hook or by Crook”?
Malthuism or as Nixon-Kissinger-John Coleman’s “Useless Eaters.”
How to save even more £billions by not only getting rid of the “Useless Eaters”, but then avoid paying their pensions.
A society dehumanised as only an economic unit.
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnblundell/p/how-to-save-even-more-billions-by?r=3fft71&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web