| | | A quick recap on Lord Dawson expediting the departure of his King and patient, George V, in 1936 through an injection of morphine and cocaine, mentioned and discussed in pages like
This euthanasia, by Dawson's own account of it to the House of Lords in 1936, was without the consent of the person being killed or even the immediate consent of his immediate family, although Queen Mary is said to have stated earlier that "she did not want her husband's life prolonged if his illness was going to be fatal". Euthanasia without consent is normally called murder, in any country. In fact, even with the consent of the person being killed, the UK legal system takes the old-fashioned view and calls the killing at the very best manslaughter.
Murder in turn normally attracts the full attention of the Rule Of Law in countries like the UK. In this case the good doctor admitted murder in the most public place possible in our governmental system but seemed quite unbothered by such normal prospects as police investigation, conviction in the courts and the death penalty. He did not even seem bothered by the little matter of negative publicity, which indeed he seemed to be spared completely during his lifetime, the story really only breaking, and rather gently at that, in 1986.
Oh, and the person being murdered was at the time the reigning sovereign of the United Kingdom and the British Empire. Even in these very democratic days we may think that removing a head of state like this might attract some ever greater negative public attention and speedier punishment. Instead, eleven days after the killing Dr Dawson was rewarded to his services to King and country (or perhaps to someone else entirely) by being created a Viscount.
What does one call this complete freedom from the normal consequences of murder, of regicide?
I suggests one calls it real power. And that it is fair to ask how, even at this late stage, such corrupt and Dark Forces might be usefully removed from the scene in the UK. Removing the monarchy itself, which is being advocated in this afternoon's Evening Standard, would not seem to be taking account of the true target in this case.
Connections
Someone asked if euthanasia is illegal in the UK if it's a predictable side-effect of Proper Care. Then a recent Ear Witness Account suggested - lack-of-anecdotally one might almost say - that most of the King's subjects were kept completely in the dark as to how exactly his life ended.
| |
