Talk:Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn: Difference between revisions

[[User:Pennine rambler|Pennine rambler]] ([[User talk:Pennine rambler|talk]])

[[User:Pennine rambler|Pennine rambler]] ([[User talk:Pennine rambler|talk]])

::No, it doesn’t. There’s no link to or even mention of George V in the new source. Doing so is original research by synthesis. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 22:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project’s quality scale.

Pennine rambler (talk · contribs) claims that https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1950-11-28/debates/f5cd2466-a4a8-4f99-af56-55b9ea726dbd/VoluntaryEuthanasia says “gentle growth in practice of euthanasia, only if decided by medical professionals” [1]. It doesn’t. The quote is made-up.

Pennine rambler also claims that https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/5012004.htm#:~:text=4.,was%20cut%20short%20by%20years. says that the King was murdered by Dawson [2]. It doesn’t. There is no mention of Dawson or George V there.

Pennine rambler claims that https://ipsaloquitur.com/criminal-law/cases/r-v-dyson/ [which is from 1908] says that Dawson murdered the King [3]. It doesn’t. A source from 1908 cannot mention events from 1936. Neither Dawson nor the King are mentioned there. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yo aare not reading the content of Hansard the proof is there before you, read what Lord Chorley says, stop blocking fcts like this, this is clear evidence. Euthanasia or hasenning a death was by law murder in 1936 as it is now.–Pennine rambler (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its there in black and white a clear citation,

Column 558 Voluntary Euthanasia, Volume 169: debated on Tuesday 28 November 1950

When the 1936 Bill was before your Lordships’ House, among the medical members who spoke was the late Lord Dawson of Perm, and the noble Lord, Lord Horder, whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon. Lord Horder spoke against the Bill on that occasion; I hope he may have seen fit to repent in the interval. Unfortunately I have no reason to believe that he is now on the side of the righteous. I will not refer to the speech which he made on the occasion I have mentioned, as he is here to give his own views to-day. The speech of Lord Dawson of Penn was really a very eloquent plea for voluntary euthanasia, though he did not actually vote for the Bill—in fact he voted against it. What I think worried him was that the safeguards proposed were too stringent. I should like to draw your Lordships attention to what seems to me to be one of the most significant passages in his speech. He gave a concrete case which was evidently one that had come within his own experience as a medical man. This is what he said:

“A woman has endured a disease with incomparable bravery for nine years, has pursued her calling and directed and sustained her home. At long last, by tile extension of the disease and diminishing strength, she is crushed by pain and complete disability. She besought peace and kindly death, and called to witness how hard she had fought. Is submerging of her sufferings to be denied her because her life might be shortened by two or three months? That can only be decided by her doctors, who know the thoughts and feelings of the patient and the realities of her stale. This is something which belongs to the wisdom and conscience of the medical profession and not to the realm of law.”

It seems to me that he was proposing to leave it to the discretion of the doctors to take a decision of that kind.

LORD HADEN-GUEST
My Lords, is the noble Lord implying that Lord Dawson of Penn suggested that a doctor should, in certain conditions, give a lethal dose of a narcotic or other drug to a patient? I have a copy of Hansard containing the report of Lord Dawson’s speech in my hand.

LORD CHORLEY
I leave it to your Lordships to judge from what he actually said. Whether or not that was what he intended to mean, of course, it is not within the discretion of doctors to take a decision of that kind, because the law does not permit them to do so. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that is clear.

—Pennine rambler (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. No mention of George V there + No statement that Dawson was a murderer = Original research by synthesis. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

—It is a matter of basic fact that the taking of anothers life murder, even when that person is close to death, that is the law of the land, it was in 1936 and is in 2026, there is also an existing reference which states, “”Doctor murdered Britain’s George V” Observer-Reporter, Washington (PA), 28 November 1986, archived from the original on 3 November 2020 citation 127 at present, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19861128&id=bkZiAAAAIBAJ&pg=2197,3764364 The detail is relevant.

YOU are editing out the wording, appears you are not remaining neautral on the topic, it was murder.

Hansard shows that Dawson opposed the legalistion of Euthanasia but proposed its use in practice, which is what you reverted without discussion, more than 3 times. Column 558 Voluntary Euthanasia, Volume 169: debated on Tuesday 28 November 1950 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1950-11-28/debates/f5cd2466-a4a8-4f99-af56-55b9ea726dbd/VoluntaryEuthanasia The detail is relevant.

The links prove the points you are blocking. Pennine rambler (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine rambler (talk)

No, it doesn’t. There’s no link to or even mention of George V in the new source. Doing so is original research by synthesis. DrKay (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]