Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Living with uncertainty




The meaning of the Word

The earth, the sky, the sea..

the bird, the ant, the you, the me...

the rock, the fruit, the tree..

it's all God....

it's called to Be.


I use the word Spiritual a lot. I define myself as seeking to live a spiritual life.

By that I mean a life where I have a lot of time for God and little or no time for religion.

Religion can of course be spiritual but often it is not. And spirituality can be religious but it does not need to be.





For me reacting to life from a spiritual perspective means that I see everything, and I mean everything, as having purpose and meaning as part of my spiritual growth. Nothing happens by chance and good can come out of everything. It is of course far more complex than that. And yet, at the same time, incredibly simple.



Having explored many religions in my life I finally decided to stick with God and stay away from religion. Hence I began to use the word spiritual a lot. So what do I mean? I have started to ask myself that question.



We need to understand what we mean when we use words to describe who we are or how we live. We need to understand what we are saying for our own sake.



The dictionary definition of spiritual includes:




· religious: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; religious texts; a member of a religious order; lords temporal and ... (Yes, I am concerned with sacred matters but not religion)

· apparitional: resembling or characteristic of a phantom; a ghostly face at the window; a phantasmal presence in the room; spectral emanations; spiritual tappings at a seance (this is a part of what is defined as spiritual but not an important part for me. These are effects not substance.)



Everyone is different, every journey is different, every Soul is unique and that is why each and every spiritual journey is unique. We may learn from the experiences of others but we must always walk the spiritual path alone. Perhaps that is why spirituality and religion make such odd bed-fellows. A religious life demands that we obey rules, that we believe what others tell us, that we conform. While a spiritual life demands that we live by our own inner rules; that we question everything we are told by others and that we are guided by our own truth... a truth which emerges from our intuitive relationship with God.


With religion God is given to us - handed out on a patriarchal platter in the main. With a spiritual life we are called to search for God in every moment of our being. Religion hands God out in defined shapes and forms; spirituality offers God without shape or form.

A religious life is bounded and hounded by rules; a spiritual life has no boundaries and no urgency. A religious God is made in the image of man (mostly men with female support staff) while a spiritual God is in any and every image and yet without image for it is the source and being of all things.


It's interesting trying to define what one means by the use of a word and it makes me realise how inadequate words are to describe such things. No wonder the ancients decided that God was beyond words.


Carl Jung said, 'symbol is the lost language of the Soul,' and the spiritual journey is always symbolic. Within those images we find God without turning God into an image. It is not an easy journey because so much of it is solitary and their are no rules, except for the ones that you discover upon the way. But within that place of terror where you realise that at the end of the day, it is between you and God and your job is to do the hard work, there is freedom. When you depend upon others and the beliefs of others you remain dependent; when you depend upon yourself and your relationship with God, only then are you truly free.


And the beauty of the spiritual path is that you can find God in your own way. It requires a commitment to walk with open eyes ... most of the time anyway ... and to remain open to all that is, knowing that within any 'death' there is always 'rebirth.'

And there will be many 'deaths' along the path. It can be no other way. And that is why so few choose to walk the Spiritual Path for, as W.H. Auden so succintly wrote:


We would rather be ruined than changed.

We would rather die in our dread

than climb the cross of the moment

and let our illusions die.


This is actually the only quote I remember and I am sure there is a reason for that as well. Perhaps as a reminder of how hard it is to let our illusions die. And the most powerful illusion that we have and which most of us refuse to let die, is certainty. For it is such a comfortable illusion that we never cease striving to attain it. But illusion it is.


Living with uncertainty is the First Lesson on the Spiritual Path.

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

We need religion and religion needs us


Wednesday, April 27, 2022


 Tyranny of self is barely known,

ignored, dismissed, denied, and 

yet so real in rustling through the

undergrowth of mind, sliding in

abandoned silence, fangs bared

and waiting for the helpless fall

of self, into darkness; so we

live and breathe in our own sub


Saturday, April 2, 2022


The last two years have reminded me and no doubt many others, of how easily people will 'fall into line' and support an official narrative, largely without question.
And that includes highly intelligent and well educated people and I am not saying intelligence and education necessarily go together for they do not. Someone with a string of PhD's may not be particularly intelligent and someone who left school at 12 may be exceptionally intelligent.
However, we tend to think that a good education and/or intelligence will make people more curious, more sceptical, more questioning but that is also not a given it seems.
The desire to 'run with the herd' without asking questions is no doubt hardwired into our primitive 'reptilian' human brain because it was, for aeons a matter of survival that we remained a part of the tribe, the group, the clan given the difficulties if not impossibilities of surviving alone. The age of individualism, in which we live and which is barely a century old, does not take account of human biological, physiological and psychological realities and that is why so much can go so wrong, so easily. And it does, consistently.
The best laid plans of mice and men - did not arise in a vacuum.
Whether it is the success of bullying in getting people to comply to fascistic regulations and medical treatments in the name of Covid, or the desire so many seem to have in regard to the Russia/Ukraine war to be a matter of good versus evil or bad guy/good guy in absolute terms, there is no doubt that we humans can be herded into compliance and complacency very easily.
Covid was never a threat to the vast majority but most people believed that it was because officials told them it was, even though there was a wealth of information to counter what they were being told. Not only did most line up and hold out their arms for the genetic experiment, they had their children line up and hold out their arms for a poorly tested, unapproved and dangerous experiment. Why? Because being 'outside the herd' was just too terrifying. The evidence was there to be easily seen which countered the official narrative but most people dismissed, denied or ignored it. There had to be a Why for the What to my mind.
Ditto for the easily whipped up hatred of Russia for a war which was largely of US/Nato/Ukraine's making. Of course Russia is to be condemned but so are the Americans, Europeans and Ukrainians who acted in ways which made such a war inevitable.
But do people want balance and an understanding of why this is happening? No, most want to hate one side or the other and split it into a very simple issue of right and wrong, good and bad. Why? Because taking sides in such a way projects evil outside of our group, herd, tribe and self.
Why would more people not want to understand why something is happening and ask the questions to find out? Because for thousands of years such a path for most meant alienation and death. Banished, ostracised, shunned are words which litter human experience across millions of years. And this inevitably lead to death. Although even isolation and the lack of connectedness with other humans is a trauma few can bear. We are hardwired to connect, to belong to a group, to relate to other humans.
Cultures of all kinds had various ways, means and methods to punish those who challenged the rules of the group and this must be 'written' into our genes in some way, or passed down consciously, unconsciously, emotionally through millennia.
It takes someone very brave or very foolish to challenge such rules. Perhaps it is why in some societies, the fool, halfwit, mentally inadequate member was honoured. The fool could say things and do things which the society would not generally tolerate. The dance of madness could serve a purpose.
Shocking things could be whispered, nay, shouted by the Fool who expressed what others dare not say.
And yet without questions, without some brave, mad fool asking questions humanity would not have evolved and the scientific system of enquiry would never have appeared. The 'rules' could be broken a little in the arts, in music, theatre, painting, writing, but humans learned that when it came to survival it was most important to follow the crowd, remain acceptable to the group and to be obedient and a 'good' citizen.
The adult desires the warm glow which comes from 'being good' as much as the child. Perhaps even more so because few of us believe we are truly good and most would never feel good enough.
It is interesting how often that phrase has been used 'doing the right thing' in regard to participation in the genetic experiment called a vaccine, for Covid. In truth, doing the right, sensible and logical thing would be to refuse the treatment given that it is all risk and no gain as any thorough research of both Covid and the Jabs easily reveals.
But what people really mean when they say 'doing the right thing' is doing that which will gain approval from the group, the herd, the society, i.e. doing that which will allow you to be retained within the society and not banished into the borderlands where your survival is unlikely.
Look how easily some have turned against the Unjabbed as if they had committed some terrible evil, instead of simply refusing to participate in a genetic experiment which provided no gain.
And look how easy it has been to get most people to jump on the Evil Russia/Saintly Ukraine bandwagon?
So, for many people, thinking is just too dangerous and questions are not worth the risk they carry. Survival is all that matters, even if it kills you literally. Rejection or banishment from the group is the greatest fear of all. To be thrown out of the 'cave' into the darkness alone, is as terrifying to a human mind today as it was a million years ago. Not all human minds, but many, probably most.
It is this disconnect between what we may wish, what we may choose to believe, and our very human natures which creates so many problems and destroys some very good ideas with noble goals, like religion, democracy and the scientific system of enquiry. We ignore our nature at our peril. It is our unconscious nature, that which has been learned over millions of years, which will triumph over any conscious belief.
This is why truly excellent ideas end up shattered at the feet of history. No more than dangerous shards of what they might have been. The great divide between what we think or believe and what we are hardwired to feel, think and believe can and does consume anything, including the greatest and potentially most noble concepts.
Take liberal democracy for instance. A great idea in concept but almost doomed to fail like the rest because human nature will decide the outcome far more powerfully than any belief. As it is, the war in Ukraine exists because the United States believes, at least during the time of a unipolar world, that it has the right and the power to impose liberal democracy on any country in the world.
Who would not support such a ‘good’ cause? Probably anyone who understands human nature, global dynamics, social and political realities and common sense.
There is the idea and there is the reality and unless the two can walk together, there will be failure and often terrible, ghastly, deadly, shocking failure.
I read a book many years ago about the difference between transformation and reformation which made the point that Reformers often create more harm than any intended good because they demand that their beliefs, ideas, concepts be projected and imposed on the individual regardless, all the while demanding a perfect expression of their concept.
While Transformers, work with individuals to bring as much ‘good’ as possible out of their human realities accepting imperfection and understanding that each person is uniquely different and will transform in their own way.
But, the key factor at work with humans is that we are social animals and that need will always speak with a louder voice than any system of belief. Particularly when we have consigned that reality to the darkness where it drip-feeds on ignorance and fear.
Know Thyself was carved into the sign over the gate which led to the Eleusinian Mysteries in ancient Greece and those two words hold the key to being the best that we can be as individuals or as members of any group.
Without the courage to ask questions we can know nothing, least of all ourselves.

Monday, March 28, 2022

Beware good intentions

 There is nothing more dangerous than good intentions which become entrenched in a mechanistic system.

And that is because, human nature means the best of intentions will become compromised and often, dangerously and destructively so.
Take IVF as an example. The 'good intention' was modern science-medicine finding a way to help a couple become pregnant when they could not, or rather, had not, done it naturally. The gift of a child was the goal and who could quibble with that gift? Well, the children might when they grow up but let us stick with the presenting position of good intentions.
What happened to IVF? It became a business, an industry a commodity where human lives were sold and bartered like ice-cream with no thought given to the humans created by the process and no thought given to the impact on society of procreation being made a profitable industry. We now have humans created from donated sperm, eggs, wombs with no connection in some cases to any of the donors and a total denial of their human and biological rights.
We have gay couples buying the required sperm, eggs or womb and creating human life with the intention, of preventing the child and the adult from ever knowing their biological connections.
We have women in Third World countries hiring out their wombs to be seeded with the end result of a stranger's sperm and another stranger's egg. These surrogate 'mothers' or foetus carriers, are poor and it is one way to earn money. What it might do to the 'carriers' or the resulting child is irrelevant it seems.
So, what seemed like a good idea has been corrupted by the lure of money, which is generally what happens with human beings. This is not to say that IVF has not, in some cases, been managed with consideration, ethics and care but to point out that the industry has become something it was never intended to be, with costs which were never assessed because no-one thought through what might happen.
When money talks, ethics, laws, regulations and common sense go out of the window. When you reduce human life to something akin to cooking up margarine in a laboratory you reduce human life and humanity fullstop.
And that is exactly what the outcome would be with legalising euthanasia. No matter how many promises of regulations, legalities, safeguards, once the Pandora's box of legal murder is opened, who knows where it will go.
Yes, it is terrible to watch people suffer but is murder the only option? Surely there are other, more humane ways, to walk the last part of a path from life to death? Are we humans so lacking in innovation and creativity that we cannot find some other way to help those who are suffering at the end?
One thing is certain, good intentions will never be enough to ward off the evils which arise when we sacrifice our humanity, our integrity and our common sense in the name of a 'quick answer' to a problem.
The liberal, humanist case against assisted dying
The assisted-dying campaign is not as reasonable or humane as it appears.
25th March 2022
The campaign to legalise assisted dying appears reasonable and compassionate. Its advocates claim it would allow us to legally put an end to the unnecessary suffering of those who want to die. As Baroness Meacher – the sponsor of the Assisted Dying Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords – said of helping a friend arrange an assisted death in Switzerland: ‘I was motivated purely by compassion. But in the eyes of the law, my acts made me a criminal.’
Although it looks reasonable and humane, this campaign to legalise assisted dying is anything but. As I will set out below, it is primarily based on fear-mongering; it would undermine the idea of moral equality that regards the killing of an 86-year-old as just as wicked as the killing of a 24-year-old; and rather than liberate the individual, it would destroy his freedom.
Moreover, as the history of the euthanasia movement shows, the undoubtedly genuine compassion of today’s assisted-dying campaigners conceals the disturbing utilitarian and technical view of humanity on which their campaign is ultimately based.
The language of assisted dying
If we are to understand assisted dying beyond the emotive case now made for it, we must pin down the modern terms. Euthanasia – literally ‘good death’ – is where the doctor acts to end life. It can be voluntary or involuntary. Passive euthanasia is death by omission – when doctors, either of their own volition or at the request of the patient, purposefully end treatment, knowing it will lead to death. Passive euthanasia might also include a patient refusing food and drink but still being kept comfortable by medical attendants. Such acts are legal almost everywhere. Assisted suicide is when the doctor provides the means but the patient takes the final action. ‘Assisted dying’, or ‘Medical assistance in death’ (MAiD), appears to be a compendium term that might or might not include some of the above.
Indeed, the terminology shifts according to timespan and geography. Little wonder, the terms du jour, ‘assisted dying’ and MAiD become blurrier the closer you look at them. MAiD implies assisted suicide in the United States but in Canada all but a handful of MAiD deaths are euthanasia rather than assisted suicide. The Netherlands, where both euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal, has no qualms about using the term suicide – which is considered offensive in the Anglosphere – in order to distinguish them.
Does the term ‘assisted dying’ help public understanding? No, it doesn’t. In a UK poll conducted in 2021, when asked ‘What do you understand by the term “assisted dying”?’, 42 per cent of Brits polled thought it meant ‘Giving people who are dying the right to stop life-prolonging treatment’ – a right that they already have. When considering that the majority of Brits support the legalisation of ‘assisted dying’, it is useful to remember that much of what they support is already legal.
A fear-mongering campaign
The campaign to legalise assisted dying often plays on people’s fears of how they and their relatives might die. Hence a typical campaigning video by Dignity in Dying, a leading UK-based assisted-dying campaign group, will feature a person dying painfully in hospital, begging the doctor to make it stop. He or she will be surrounded by relatives, who tearfully plead with hospital staff to end it. Many watching such short films will recall the death of a loved one and are genuinely horrified at the prospect that anyone else should have to suffer like that.
The liberal, humanist case against assisted dying
But how true is this scenario? Not very. In 2019, the CEO of Hospice UK, a charity that works with those experiencing death, dying and bereavement, publicly chastised Dignity in Dying for the ‘sensationalist and inaccurate’ portrayal of death in a video to accompany its ‘The Inescapable Truth’ campaign.
Dignity in Dying eventually removed that particular video but it is persisting with its scare tactics. It continues to claim that 17 people will suffer as they die every day. What it does not say is that an estimated 1,700 people die every day in the UK. That means, according to Dignity in Dying’s own statistics, that less than one per cent of the population will suffer as they die.
Besides, the focus on averting pain is misleading. In fact, pain does not feature in the top five reasons why people opt for death in nations and states where assisted suicide is legal.
The freedom to die?
Is there not a case for justifying assisted dying on grounds of individual freedom and the right to choose? Surely assisted dying is a case of volenti non fit injuria (to one who volunteers, no harm is done)? As Article 4 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) had it: ‘Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else.’
John Stuart Mill addressed a similar argument, in relation to the freedom to sell oneself into slavery, in On Liberty. The reasons for doing so, as with asking to be killed, might be entirely virtuous, he argued. For example, someone might wish to sacrifice his freedom for that of his children and be promised remuneration for selling himself into slavery. But, as Mill explains: ‘The reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a person’s voluntary acts, is consideration for his liberty… But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty… The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.’ (1)
Suicide, assisted or otherwise, can be seen in the same light, as an alienation of an individual’s freedom. Indeed, death is absolutely destructive of freedom. As Mill would have it, it is not freedom to be allowed to destroy one’s freedom. If we are to regard each individual human life as a good, as something to be valued in and of itself, then we must oppose the destruction of an individual life. To be free to die is no freedom at all.
Lives worth living
Assisted-dying campaigners often try to separate those who should have the right to die from those who should not. Dignity in Dying, for instance, draws an imaginary line between the ‘dying’ and those who are not dying imminently. According to Dignity in Dying, the ‘dying’ are those who are about to die soon and therefore should be allowed to kill themselves, whereas those with more than six months to live should have no right to kill themselves and strenuous efforts must be made to prevent them from doing so.
The charity, Humanists UK, however, argues that ‘we do not think that there is a strong moral case to limit assistance to terminally ill people alone…’. And campaign group My Death, My Decision also rejects restricting assisted suicide to the terminally ill. Yet even these organisations refrain from campaigning for the right of all competent adults who want to die to be assisted in their suicides. They just draw different lines between those whose lives are worth living and those whose are not.
Moreover, virtually all assisted-dying advocates argue that doctors should ultimately be in charge of the process of deciding who is entitled to an assisted death. Even in Switzerland, where assisting a suicide is legal so long as there is no monetary interest involved, doctors are expected to facilitate suicides.
This is a serious problem. The decision as to whose life is no longer deemed worth living effectively rests with medical authorities or other representatives of the state. It is up to them to decide who should live and who should die.
That is what legalising assisted death means in practice – a declaration that some people, placed in certain categories, lead lives that are less worth living than others. The implications are not only frightening, they also point to the grim past of the euthanasia movement.
A dark history
‘Euthanasia’ is a very modern concept. The word, literally meaning ‘good death’, existed in Ancient Greece, but it referred principally to the idea of living well before death.
Circulating in English from the 17th century onwards, euthanasia acquired its contemporary ‘mercy killing’ sense in the late 19th century. In a paper given to the Birmingham Speculative Club in 1869, someone called Samuel D Williams was one of the first to give it its modern meaning. ‘Why, it must be asked again’, he said, ‘should all this unnecessary suffering be endured? The patient desires to die; his life can no longer be of use to others…’ (2)
Some freethinkers did indeed think there was a right to die. The famous secularist Robert Ingersoll, who published a pamphlet in 1894 entitled Is Suicide a Sin?, answered with his own question with a resounding ‘no’: ‘So I insist that the man being eaten by… cancer – a burden to himself and others, useless in every way – has the right to end his pain and pass through happy sleep to dreamless rest.’ (3)
Yet Williams, Ingersoll or anyone else at the time never imagined that suicide – a solitary act – should be assisted.
Only in the early part of the 20th century did euthanasia proper come to the fore. In the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany, there were several unsuccessful attempts to legalise euthanasia. This pro-euthanasia campaign emerged against a political background increasingly dominated by eugenics. While ‘Social Darwinism’ implied that the fittest would survive if nature weeded out society’s losers, eugenics favoured active intervention to assist natural selection. As the German zoologist Robby Kossmann put it at the end of the 19th century, the state ‘must reach an even higher state of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual… The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.’ (4)
In 1913 Roland Gerkan, who was dying from tuberculosis at the time, petitioned the German parliament, asking for those in his situation to be allowed to be dispatched by a physician. He insisted that it be voluntary but insisted ‘examining doctors’ should determine whether or not ‘the patient would recover permanent ability to work’. He further noted that euthanasia should be ‘equally applicable to the elderly and crippled’ (5).
In 1920 Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche published the pamphlet, Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living. They argued that ‘there are indeed human lives in whose continued preservation all rational interest has permanently vanished’ (6). Psychiatrist and neurologist Robert Gaupp – remembered for his principled defence of a man with Jewish associations in opposition to the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 – was referring to mentally disabled people when he said that it was time to remove ‘the burden of the parasites’ (7).
Such views reached their grim culmination in the Nazis’ infamous T4 Aktion programme – an involuntary euthasia project responsible for an estimated 300,000 deaths of mentally and physically disabled patients between 1939 and 1945. Of course, no one should infer that these brutal killers bear any relation to today’s assisted-dying campaigners – who are, in general, sincerely compassionate in their motivations. But nor should we view the T4 Aktion programme as entirely distinct from the wider euthanasia movement.
These sentiments were not restricted to Germany. In the US, supporters of euthanasia were equally vocal. ‘Our puny sentimentalism has caused us to forget that a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and to the world’, said the famous deaf, dumb and blind woman, Helen Keller. In the early years of the 20th century, Dr Ella K Dearborn cheerfully called for ‘euthanasia for the incurably ill, insane, criminals and degenerates’ ( And in the UK in 1931, Sir James Purves-Stewart, a physician at Westminster Hospital and future member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation Society – the forerunner of Dignity in Dying – called on his countrymen to give euthanasia ‘most serious consideration’ because of ‘a grave menace to the future of the state’ and ‘race’. Another prominent ELS member, the psychiatrist and eugenicist, AF Tredgold, told the British Medical Journal that euthanasia should ‘also be extended to include incurable low-grade defectives. It is true that these would be incapable of consent, but their inclusion would appear to be a logical sequence of the proposal.’ (9)
Against assisted dying
After the Second World War, and the horrors of the Nazism, the word if not the meaning of euthanasia fell into a certain disrepute. In 1950 a euthanasia proponent writing in the New Republic called for a new terminology: ‘If we call these situations “assisted suicide” rather than “mercy killing”, the moral content would be considerably changed.’ (10) Assisted suicide, though, had to wait until the 1980s to enter common parlance.
Today, of course, the campaign for assisted dying is very different to that for euthanasia before the Second World War. But some of the same utilitarian concerns about certain people being a burden and a drain on resources persist just below the surface of today’s assisted-dying discourse. For example, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2001, mainstream political parties have expressed support for the Completed Life Initiative. Based on a 2010 campaign that boasted 117,000 supporters, the CLI promises euthanasia for those over the age of 74 who are ‘tired of life’. That this age group is also deemed the least productive in society should worry us all.
Then there is the widespread use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a measure of a person’s ability to carry out daily activities, free from pain and mental disturbance. This measure allows states to rationalise resources, especially medical resources, according to the ‘quality’ of the years a person might have left. Proponents of assisted suicide often employ QALY measurements to assert that the lives of people with certain conditions are not worth living. As two researchers argue, ‘denying access to assisted dying means that patients remain alive (against their wishes), and this can often necessitate considerable consumption of resources’ (12).
Legalising assisted dying should not be regarded as a simple step to bring relief to a very few. It is a huge step that will lead to some people’s lives – on physical, or sometimes mental grounds – being deemed not worth living. That is a dire and dangerous situation. There is wisdom yet in the famous old Christian precept, thou shalt not kill.
Kevin Yuill teaches American studies at the University of Sunderland.
(1) On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill, Norton, 1975, p95.
(2) ‘Euthanasia’, by Samuel D Williams, in Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club, William Morley, 1874, pp210-237.
(3) The Works of Robert Ingersoll, by Robert Ingersoll, Dresden Publishing Co, 1900, Vol 4, p389.
(4) Cited in ‘Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859-1920’, by Richard Weikart, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 63, No 2 (April, 2002), pp323-344, 330.
(5) Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany, 1900-1945, by Michael Burleigh, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp13-14.
(6) ‘Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens: Ihr Maß und ihre Form’, by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, (tr Thomas Dunlop), in Spurensuche: Eugenik, Sterilisation, Patientenmorde und die v. Bodelschwinghschen Anstalten Bethel 1929-1945, edited by Matthias Benad in conjunction with Wolf Kätzner and Eberhad Warns, Bethel-Verlag, 1997, pp179-86.
(7) Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany, 1900-1945, by Michael Burleigh, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp13-14.
(‘Would slay criminals, insane, incurably ill, and degenerates: For the good of Society: famous women physicians offer some startling ideas’, Seattle Star, 24 Aug 1905.
(9) ‘A Prey on Normal People: C Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930-55’, by Ian Dowbiggin, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36, No 1 (2001) pp59-85, 69, 70.
(10) Cited in ‘Euthanasia and Modern Morality: Their Moral Implications’, by Thomas Q Martin, The Jurist Vol X (January-October, 1950), pp437-464, 460, fn73.
(11) ‘Counting the Cost of Denying Assisted Dying’, by David Shaw and Alec Morton, Clinical Ethics, 10 March 2020.