A headline in one of the Sunday papers today read "800 Britons on waiting list for Swiss suicide clinic."

It was not the number that shocked so much as learning there are waiting lists for suicide clinics. Have things really go so bad?

Well maybe they have. The way things are going we will soon not be able to make even the most trivial decision affecting our own lives without the government interfering. In the same week as the resurrection of an idea to compel all people over fifty to take drugs to lower their blood pressure, (a legal obligation that will apply even to those who do not have high blood pressure ) it has emerged that one of the drugs they want to compel us to take, Aspirin, does more harm than good in most cases. Just forget for a moment though the possible effects of a blood thinning drug like aspirin on somebody (like yours truly for example) who has a track record of haemorrhaging. Had I listened to the whiney manta of my former GP Dr. Thikaspigshit Munigrabinwala, "I'm a scientist, I deal with facts, not individual whims," I would be a goner now. But as I said, forget than for a moment.

Even lay people are aware that low blood pressure can be as dangerous as high blood pressure. And drugs to control high blood pressure will lower normal blood pressure. The consequences of making the whole population of over fifties take these drugs then will be absoeffinglutely obvious to anyone except a medical research scientist in the pay of Big Pharma of their best buddies The Government.

Thus the compulsion becomes necessary because if people are free to make their own decisions they will think "sod it, I'm going to die of something sooner or later, better a few years sooner having enjoyed a drink or three, lots of steaks and bacon butties and apple pie with that cream so thick you have to eat it with a knife and for than to subsist on a diet of unsweetened porridge, lentils and watercress soup."

Only a medical research scientist would be stupid enough to believe they could, through mass medication, abolish death. Only a politician would be mendacious enough to promote such and idea in order to further the agenda of control freakery.

Further evidence of progress made by the control freak agenda can be found in the case of a woman whose child was taken into care because according to social workers "she is too stupid to be a mother." The decision to seize the child was made in spite of there being no evidence of abuse, neglect or ill-treatment. Psychologists who interviewed the mother reported that she "seemed to be in the normal intelligence range."

While it is not always wise to take too much notice of psychologists, in a case where they find nothing amiss we should be wary of dismissing them as nuttier than their clients. They have a tendency to find problems where there are non and pronounce cures on patients who are dangerously stark raving bonkers but smart enough to tell the shrink what he or she wants to hear.

What is "too stupid to be a mother." Up until about a year ago a young single mum lived close to us. Though the lass had the intelligence of a brick, and a borderline retarded brick at that she was an excellent mother who loved her children, looked after them well and gave them plenty of attention. Lots of very dumb people have been excellent parents. Lots of very intelligent people have been lousy parents.

The question that should be asked then but will not be is "by what criteria did the social workers decide to take that child away. The same maybe as led them to leave the obviously abused and neglected Baby P in a home with a mother who might have had a PhD in Very Very Clever (though I doubt it) but didn't give a shit about what her boyfriend who had a track record of child abuse was doing to her child? The same criteria as persuaded it would be unfair to deny an adolescent in care the chance of being fostered by telling the prospective foster parents who had younger children of their own that the one they were being asked to foster had a record of abusing younger children in homes where he had previously been placed?

Or were the criteria used simply that the social workers thought the "too stupid to be a mother" woman was not politically correct enough. Perhaps her baby was not mixed race or she was displaying a UKIP poster in her window. Worse, she may have been clean, well nourished and drug free. Maybe the agents of The Thought Police just didn't like her face.

We will never find out the whole story but one thing becomes more clear with every such story. YOU MUST NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY.

And that goes a long way to explaining why so many people are queuing to top themselves.

LINKS: Times Online: Mother Too Stupid To Keep Child

Mail On Sunday: Mother Deemed Too Stupid To Care For Daughter

RELATED POSTS: A Future Of Medieval Serfdom
A New Socialism
PBR Disaster
Lib Dems Big Idea
ID Cards, The Taxman And You
Blood Bank Toxic Debt
Health And Safety Warning - Dangerous Trees
Well We Did Warn You
Government By Fear And Panic
Nanny State Has Her Cake And Eats It
Can Things Get Any Worse
You Live, You Die
Fear And Panic And HP Sauce
Health And Safety Halloween
Spooky Halloween Poems
Halloween Fortnight
Health and Safety - Life Saving Is A Risky Business