I’m sure my past correspondents at the VES would vehemently disagree with the following, but I found Dr Kathryn Mannix’s letter in yesterday’s Guardian to be considered, interesting, and well-argued:

I am a consultant in palliative medicine and over my 19 years in this area I have been asked about euthanasia by patients many times, but only three patients have ever asked me to provide assistance with their deaths. Patients usually ask about euthanasia as they consider all the future possibilities of dealing with a progressive and incurable illness. But it is a measure of the ability of human beings to cope with situations previously considered unendurable, so few requests for euthanasia actually arise. However, a small number of people continue to consider that they would prefer to be dead, and for them and their supporters the current law is the cause of much criticism.

The bill to legalise assistance with dying, currently before the House of Lords, arises from the argument that to deny assistance is to deny the autonomy, or right to choose, of an individual. Proponents describe this denial as dehumanising, as though exercise of autonomy alone is the mark of human personhood. The humanising aspect of choice is its potential for nobility: as humans, we can reflect on our being and on the consequences of our choices. The right to choose to die with medical assistance, when placed in this context, must be weighed against the nobility of relinquishing this right if its commission would damage other, possibly more vulnerable, members of our society.

The person who is more vulnerable is the person with a terminal illness who acknowledges that the part of their life that is without suffering is over, but who is now afraid that other, powerful people may assume that they would prefer death to continuing to live in this way.

The current law presumes that life should not deliberately be ended. This protects thousands of dying people from any anxiety or uneasy self-doubt that they may be selfish not to opt for euthanasia and relieve their loved ones of a burden of care. It protects doctors from the accusation that we act to end life as we carefully adjust the doses of sedatives that are sometimes needed to control pain for terminally ill people.

To change the law so that euthanasia is permissible would immediately remove these protections, for the benefit of a small but vocal number of patients who would value their own autonomy above the protection of those even more vulnerable than themselves. This bill is clearly grounded in compassion, but it is compassion without clear vision. For the sake of the human dignity of those most vulnerable in our society, legalisation of assisted dying should not be permitted.

This is certainly one argument I haven’t really considered in detail before, but, on balance, I don’t think it radically alters my personal position on the issue; but that’s not to say that I can’t be swayed.

Another letter states that

Recent correspondence was summarised in the current issue of the British Medical Journal as showing an overwhelming response against physician assisted suicide.

This raises a further important question: If the majority of doctors are against the idea of physician assisted suicide, then presumably a majority will choose not to do so, even if given the power, on ethical grounds, in the same way that many doctors refuse to carry out abortions, or directly refer their patients to abortion clinics. Who, then, is to carry it through? Are we to blindly create a new speciality of killing patients? And if so, are these really the best doctors to judge the situation, or would it not be very difficult for a doctor who has never previously met a patient or assessed them over time to truly judge whether a patient is ready and actively wanting to die?

Clearly, there’s a lot of suffering that could be relieved through the legalisation of euthanasia, and I don’t think anyone can deny that. Therefore, it’s difficult to do anything but support the idea in principle. But then, communism works in principle. Reality is often a very different kettle of fish, and hence I can see no other choice than to oppose the proposed legislation.

From the front page of today’s Guardian:

The government should not attempt to browbeat judges over its new anti-terrorism laws, the new senior judge in England and Wales warned yesterday. The lord chief justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said judges were not in conflict with the government but said that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for a politician to try to put pressure on them … Tony Blair denied that he was “browbeating” the judiciary and went on to warn the judges – again in explicit terms – that they must not rule against the anti-terror measures that were being proposed.

“Err, I’m not telling you what to do, but you can’t rule against this!”

I don’t think he understands…

Sky have confirmed that their news channel is to relaunch on October 24th, in an over-sized studio with flashy screens and a spinning desk. Following on from previous practices, rumours suggest that the studio is to be referred to as Skybase, and all presenters will be required to wear coloured jump suits whilst presenting, and interacting with a computer-generated 3D world of flying news-related objects. A corner of the studio will be reserved in case of a formal declaration of war, and at such a moment the desk will spin at high speed to give the appropriate backdrop, whilst pyrotechnics around the desk give the appearance of a giant news-based catherine wheel.

Weather will be presented from the upper floors of the mammoth studio, on the basis that they will be closer to the real weather action happening above our heads. This will be facilitated by an opening roof hatch, which will double-up as a way for Kay ‘Meet the People’ Burley to dramatically board the SkyCopter when opinions are sought on a given issue. A giant tower is also to be erected on top of the studio building, from where comment can be passed on the state of traffic on all Britain’s roads.

It’s going to be great.

Last Saturday was the best-ever daily sale for The Grauny:

Last Saturday’s sales are said to have beaten the previous record, for the Saturday after September 11, 2001, by 29,000. The redesigned paper was helped by a DVD giveaway of The Madness of King George.

Having sunk to its lowest ABC circulation for 27 years this August, next week’s ABC figures for September are expected to show that the Berliner has brought an increase in sales of 60,000 a day.

That’s pretty darn impressive – to go from losing 15,000 readers a month to gaining 60,000 is no mean feat. It’s very nearly a 20% increase. But, of course, the real question is whether it can be sustained over the coming weeks and months. The Guardian have always been very open about their sales figures (even when they were in rapid decline), though, so I suspect they’ll tell us honestly whether or not it’s sustained.

It’s certainly a very promising start, even if not quite so big a relative bump as received by the Independent when they compacted themselves. It’ll be good to see how it pans out.

Ronnie Barker, one of my favourite comedians, has died aged 76. There’s full obituaries over at the BBC site, but I thought a much more fitting tribute would be to share one of my favourite Barker monologues… Pismronunciation.

“Good evening. I am the president of the Loyal Society for the Relief of Suffers from Pismronunciation, for the relief of people who can’t say their worms correctly, or who use the wrong worms entirely, so that other people cannot underhand a bird they are spraying. It’s just that you open your mouse, and the worms come turbling out in wuck a say that you dick not what you’re thugging to be, and it’s very distressing.

“I’m always looing it, and it makes one feel umbumftorcacle, especially when one is going about one’s diddly tasks. Slopping at the Sloopermarket, for instance. Only last wonk, I approached the chuckout point, and I shooed the ghoul behind the crash desk the contents of my trilly, and she said ‘All right, granddad, shout ’em out.’ Well, of course, that’s fine for the ordinary man in the stoat who has no dribble with his wolds. For someone like myself, it’s worse than a kick in the jackstrop.

“Sometimes, you get stuck on one letter, such as wubbleyou. And I said, ‘Well, I’ve got a tin of woup, a woucumber, two packets of wheese and a walliflower’. She tried to make fun of me and said, ‘That will be woo pounds, wifty-wee pence.’ So I just said ‘Wobblers!’ and walked out.

“So you see how dickyfelt it is. But help is at hand. A new society has been formed by our mumblers to help each other in times of excream ices. It is balled Pismronouncers Unanimous, and anyone can ball them up on the smellyphone any time of the day or note, twenty-four flowers a spray, seven stays a creek, and they will come ’round and get drunk with you.

“For foreigners, there will be inperpetwitters, who will all speak many sandwiches, such as Swedish, Turkish, Burkish, Jewish, Gibberish and Rubbish. Membranes will be able to attend tight stool, for heaving classes, to learn how to grope with the many complinkities of the daily loaf.

“Which brings me to the drain reason for squeaking to you tonight. The society’s first function as a body was a grand garden freight, and we hope for many more bodily functions in the future. The garden plate was held in the grounds of Blennham Paleyass, Woodstick, and the guest of horror was the great American pip singer, Manny Barrellow. The fete was opened by the bleeder of the opposition, Mister Dale Pinnock … Pillock, who gave us a few well-frozen worms in praise of the society’s jerk. He said that ‘In the creeks and stunts that lie ahead, we must do out nut roast to ensure that it sucks weeds.’ “And everyone visited the various stores and abrusements, the rudeabouts, thing boats and the dodgers, and of course, all the old favorites such as Srty your Length, guessing the weight of the cook and tinning the pale on the wonky. The occasion was great fun, and I think it can safely be said that all the men present and thoroughly good women were had all the time.

“So, please join out society. Write to me, Doctor Small Pith, The Spanner, Poke Moses, and I will send you some brieflets to browse through and a brass badge to wear in your loophole.”

Thanks to MediaGuardian for the transcript.

Ronnie will be sadly missed.

As no-one can fail to have noticed, earlier this week, 82-year-old long-term Labour supporter and Conference-goer Walter Wolfgang was physically removed from the Conference centre by ‘heavies’ after showing the single word ‘nonsense’ during Jack Straw’s speech. The police then detained him under Anti-Terror Legislation when he later tried to re-enter the hall.

This gentleman clearly posed no terrorist threat. His only ‘crime’ was to utter a single word when the Labour bigwigs didn’t want him to. And yet he was held under the ‘crucial’ Terror Laws that we were assured would only be used in the most extreme circumstances to detain the most dangerous people.

For some time, people including myself have been arguing that

Laws [cannot be] restricted to what they were meant to be used for. Judges and the police have a nasty habit of sticking to the very letter of the law … If this government continues to make laws which are this full of gaping holes, sooner or later it’s going to turn round and bite them back.

And yet, in the face of police blatantly flouting Mr Blair’s publicly stated intentions for the laws, all he’s done is apologise to Mr Wolfgang. He’s not revisiting this legislation, and he’s not even disciplining the police force. In fact, Mr Blair wants to extend the powers available to the police. And all because He, in His infinite wisdom, has bypassed thousands of years of history and declared that protection of the common-man is now more important than the freedom of the innocent. The logical conclusion of which is surely that we just lock up – or kill – everyone who we don’t like the look of.

The terrorist threat to this country may be different to that which we have faced in the past, but it’s no so great that we should sacrifice the central tenet of our justice system and beliefs. If we change something so fundamental with so little thought and debate, then what is left to protect?