Dignity in Dying and My Death My Decision (et al.) are touting the recent poll of 28 people which was clearly designed to persuade the British public that they ‘really do’ support Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. (Yes: only 28 people!!)
We have shown flaws in previous Dignity in Dying opinion polls and now the supporters of assisted suicide have developed a new PsyOp to gaslight a whole country: The JURY! (“Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves.”)
This article focuses on what I can see in the process—better people than me will find other issues!
Let me give a literary example to help those who do not understand what these agencies are doing.
Remember in the Order of the Phoenix, how Harry Potter felt unable to act when he was so isolated from friends, family and the world? While visiting the Thestrals in the forest, Luna Lovegood empathised with him:
"Well if I were You-Know-Who, I’d want you to feel cut off from everyone else.
Because if it’s just you alone, you’re not as much of a threat.”
Opponents become less of a threat when we feel isolated and think that ‘everyone else’ believes in assisted suicide.
Euphemism & Misrepresentation
These agencies are old hands at manipulating words!
The use of euphemism took off in 2006 when “The Voluntary Euthanasia Society” made the genius move of changing its name to “Dignity in Dying.”
Look at how their choice “…to use the term assisted dying’” is a verbal sleight-of-hand. If it is just natural dying, then the Jury does not discuss the implications of suicide and euthanasia.
Also, look at the names in the report. The agency behind this study is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and they use the term “Jury” and “Jurors” recurrently. The terms Jury, Jurors and Council give the report an unwarranted sense of authority.
First, the Bias in Selection
Yes they did a “Sortition” which allows for “key demographics” in the British public, but then the final 2000 people were specifically filtered for their attitude to the question: “To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree that assisted dying should be legal in England?”
So, NCOB selected the final 34 panel members based on a pre-determined “set target numbers for attitudes to Assisted dying.” (That’s the FIX!!)
Opinion polls have shown a majority of the public is in favour of the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill people.
Click image for original PDF
There are other statistical problems with such tiny sample numbers; non randomization; lack of consistency, and no tests of statistical significance. (Here is one quick YouTube tutorial on statistical errors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZGxF0b0rlk ) Hopefully a qualified statistician will DM me on X about this.
The opinions of 28 people cannot possibly mirror those of a whole country.
Then, Indoctrination!
Please look at the 68 page “Information and Evidence Pack” which was used to indoctrinate the jury members. (Several pages below.) At first look, the information appears neutral, yet it is patently skewed in favour of Assisted Suicide.
The Citizens’ Jury heard and received 20 presentations from experts and witnesses, 9 fact-giving information sheets, 5 briefing papers from campaigning and advocacy groups, 1 panel discussion, 5 lived experience films, 4 reflections from the Jury Friends.
Disclosure statements about bias or perceived bias from the experts are missing.
Professor Yuan Yi Zhu noted several problems in a post on X, including that Danielle Hamm, director of NCOB was previously a director for Compassion in Dying. (This is confirmed on the Compassion in Dying’s website, clip below.)
https://compassionindying.org.uk/press-release/carers-providing-end-of-life-care-need-much-more-support-new-research-has-found/
Look through the list of topics and see how the panel members were told how to “listen and think”; how to “ethically think”; and ‘gee…see how many other places have introduced Assisted Suicide already!!’ —without data or ‘case studies’ from the majority of the world which opposes Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.
Introduction Webinar
Session I
Session II (cut off: Mulloch is Sr. Lecturer Medical Law: Manchester.)
Session III
Session IV
Session IV continued
Session V
Of the “five lived experiences” two are documented as being ‘in favour’ but they also had one from the family of a person who used Dignitas, and the remaining two are noted as being opposed. (Subtle, but this is likely to be 3 against 2.)
In Session III there was a ‘Panel Discussion’ which included ONE against Assisted Suicide [CEO of Care not Killing] versus TWO in favour [Dignity in Dying; Humanist UK] and ONE more neutral [Living and Dying Well]. (Corrected 17# Sept.)
Similarly, the Written Briefs included only ONE opposed to Assisted Suicide [Care not Killing] and THREE in favour [Dignity in Dying; Humanists UK; My Death My Decision] and ONE Neutral [Living and Dying Well]. (Corrected 17# Sept.)
The one disabled speaker (that I know of) Miro Griffiths, Lecturer Leeds University who is opposed to Assisted Suicide, was left to Session IV. In addition, NCOB omitted the 1-hour documentary from disabled actress Lizz Carr—Better off Dead—where she eloquently states her position AGAINST Assisted Suicide.
Conclusion
There is no point looking at the final opinions and recommendations when the panel selection and indoctrination process means that the outcome was pre-determined.
Assisted Suicide is the 'Storm Shadow Missile' which will lay waste the old, the weak, the frail, the poor & the disabled.
Dr. Kevin M. Hay
You can follow Kevin on X: @kevinhay77
ps: Apologies to Living and Dying Well for initially listing them as being in favour of Assisted Suicide, when they have a more neutral stance and support the safety of vulnerable populations:
