Let’s start with them both centring on the fear of death and both leveraging emotional appeals to justify extreme measures.
But there’s much more…🧵
Lockdowns crossed a Rubicon in terms of civil rights – overturning the social contract.
Euthanasia crosses a Rubicon in terms of moral norms – again overturning the social contract.
Support and opposition to both policies has come from across traditional party lines.
In both cases government did not provide a risk benefit analysis.
In both cases government has not had input from ethics advisors.
Lockdown legislation was imposed rapidly with no public debate, insufficient public debate and the excuse of following international precendents.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
Lockdown was backed with a hugely expensive media campaign and independent opposing voices were drowned out.
Same for the euthanasia bill.
At their core, both policies reflect a fantasy of control: control over a virus that spreads invisibly and uncontrollably, and control over death.
The reality of the process is not what people might expect (see oregon data below – range column showed how long death took).
There is a LOT in common between the lockdown policies and the assisted dying bill — Dr Clare Craig
American Buddhist Net 