Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LANCET MEDICAL journal has refuted a claim made by US President Donald Trump that it published a report in December referring to an outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, China.
Yesterday, Trump shared a letter he wrote to Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, about a review his administration conducted into the WHO’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak.
President Trump wrote that “we know the following” and the first allegation he makes is that WHO “consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal”.
“The World Health Organization failed to independently investigate credible reports that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts, even those that came from sources within Wuhan itself,” he wrote.
Today, the Lancet said “this statement is factually incorrect”.
“The Lancet published no report in December, 2019, referring to a virus or outbreak in Wuhan or anywhere else in China. The first reports the journal published were on January 24, 2020,” the journal said in a statement.
In a paper by Chaolin Huang and colleagues, the first 41 patients from Wuhan with COVID-19 were described. The scientists and physicians who led this study were all from Chinese institutions. They worked with us to quickly make information about this new epidemic outbreak and the disease it caused fully and freely available to an international audience.
A second paper, from Jasper Chan and colleagues, also published on January 24, described the first scientific evidence confirming person-to-person transmission of the new virus. This report included scientists and physicians from Hong Kong and mainland China.
The Lancet said the allegations levelled against the WHO in this letter from President Trump are “serious and damaging to efforts to strengthen international cooperation to control this pandemic”.
“It is essential that any review of the global response is based on a factually accurate account of what took place in December and January.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well said John Halligan. To give people control to stop their own suffering is absolutely vital in an humane society
Absolutely agree. We put pets down to avoid pain as it is the humane thing to do, yet we allow our nearest and dearest to suffer any fate which befalls them. Again, this is an issue where choice is key.
The reason they make us suffer is because this is a Christian country, the founder of the cult had himself whipped and hung up on a cross therefore everyone else must also suffer dreadful agony, they believe that pain washes away a thing they call sin. Madder than mad but that’s religion for you a terrible virus that once it gets control of the mind is near impossible to eradicate
Due to a genetic issue, I may or may not face a very serious and disabling neurological and dementia related condition. Having studied the matter, if or when initially afflicted, I will terminate my own life while I am fully confident in my capacity to do this successfully. This will mean self termination at a much earlier stage than I would otherwise prefer but I can’t afford to take the chance of waiting for someone else to assist me due to the current law.
I’ve made a living Will but I’m doubtful as to its legal effectiveness and it is of very limited effect. It does not enable and it cannot enable an assisted death.
Better an early death than an undignified, disturbed and dependent life which will necessitate expensive and total dependency care. In a sense I’m lucky. Because of what I’m facing, and if It happens, it is so extreme that I will have no rational option. I have seen what happens to others afflicted. There are far worse things than death.
Others have to face these decisions. I’m not alone in this and if it happens I can and will deal with this. I have no confidence that the law will be changed.
I will lose at most 9 months of life. Better to take early charge of my end if it happens. I feel no self pity or sense that I’ve been short changed. It just is. It’s how you address problems which counts.
Thanks for sharing Fiona. That is not a nice situation but you are clearly a determined and dignified woman. I wish you well and I hope your family support you.
Socrates, thank you. Your rational and balanced comments make theJournal a more encouraging and positive space. There is a possiblity that I may be lucky. I allow myself to think that I will be.
It makes me aware how better a place it would be if it were to be legally possible to have confidence in the ability to have an assisted death. Without that, you have to end life sooner than you would otherwise like.
I was very lucky. I went for counselling. The counselling was unhelpful. But I met a wonderful person. He was older than me. He was afflicted by Huntingdons. He had a wife and children. He confronted his end and saved his wife and children much anguish. He had bravery, strength and dignity. His wife and children remember him at his best. He did not wait to decline. Only one of his relatives was nasty about it.
Paradoxically, the legal capacity to obtain an assisted death would allow people to live longer. Some chose to live out to the end but I feel more peaceful in the knowledge of knowing how and what to do if I become symptomatic.
Fiona, That’s great that you have dealt with it so well. I’m not sure how I would cope. I hope this is something you do not have to deal with but if you do, I have no doubt you will do so in a reasoned, dignified and most importantly in this context, legally. It should be the law and I hope it is very soon.
Fiona, thank you for sharing, you’re definitely in an unenviable situation, I sincerely hope that you won’t suffer from dementia, but I agree with you, I’d rather go in a dignified way, while I’m still able, also to spare friends and family the pain of seeing a loved one wasting away.
Huge hug to you fiona…
Yes a massive hug from me too. You have convinced me after reading your post. I do hope you will be lucky as you say yourself. My very best wishes to you for your health..
I feel a little emotional about people posting such lovely replies. I’m unable to say more.
I hope as others have said that it does not come to that Fiona, however you seem prepared for whichever eventuality comes to pass. You appear to be a remarkably strong and wise person. Your outlook does not inspire pity but admiration. I truly admire your courage. Wishing you all the best in life. And thanks for sharing. Your story puts certain things in my own life in perspective for me.
Thanks Fiona very well written and I can see your honesty and determination on this issue, but I think it’s so sad that we live in a country that some one may feel they have to to take those steps 9 months a year whatever before there true time, if suffering from a particular illness,I really can’t see how others can play God with when and how long one should suffer and linger against there own wish , it just ain’t right .
@fiona. So sorry you may find yourself in that situation and I hope it never comes to that for you but thank you for the inspiration. I will fully support your right to choice. Very best of luck to you.
The British parliament voted on this recently and voted it down but in surveys over 80% of the population want it interduced, their politicians and lawmakers just like ours are way out of touch with the people they are elected to represent
It’s the individual’s choice, it’s not for a government or a nation to decide.
I agree, but no government should legislate to prevent anyone from seeking to end their suffering, or criminalise a doctor who helps in these cases
Totally agree with John Halligan. What kind of backward, barbaric society do we live in that forces people at the very end of their lives to go through needles unnecessary suffering. The sooner something is done about this, the better.
If people are ready to leave this world it should be a safe and legal option as long as they are capable, have made a decision beforehand with clear legal representative or are not being forced. It’s that persons life. That persons choice
Problems arise when people can’t consent – mentally ill etc.
If they can’t consent then it doesn’t happen.
Not so. It has happened in the netherlands 42 times in one year and is currently the subject of much controversy. Don;t go making things up if you don;t know what you’re talking about.
I believe she is talking hypothetically if we were to bring it in. In the case of mental illness, a terminal diagnosis would be necessary and consent from the guardian.
Everyone is mentally ill to some extent. ….the bigger question should be why people want to make decisions for other people?
Socrates, I’m not sure what should happen in relation to mental illness. It can truly be such a painful thing and in cases where it is chronic over years I’m not sure if it’s fair to deny someone the option of ending their pain. I agree suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem in most cases but in truth it’s not always a temporary problem. It’s possible for a person to be so damaged through circumstances that it becomes impossible for them to be happy or escape the pain they feel. I wouldn’t wish such a painful existence on anybody. It’s difficult though as suicidal people who may indeed have a chance of a happy life in the future may choose to end their life given this option while not in a fit state of mind to make that decision. And what about diagnosis which are chronic and untreatable but not terminal, for example there was a woman a few years ago who was beaten so badly her spinal chord was damaged and she was left completely paralysed but her brain function was in tact. If that was me I cannot imagine wanting to live another 50/60 Years.
@Demise, hmm, that’s a hard decision to make, I admit, I myself have been several times very close to ending it all, because I felt I was in such a dark place and beyond all hope, and just giving in to desperation, but, I’ve had amazing friends pulling me through my depression, I still get down, from time to time, but hmm, I wouldn’t want to give up again, the same would apply, if I was, the gods beware, in an accident that left me paralyzed, you say, you wouldn’t want to live another 50/60 years like that, but that’s from your perspective now, if it affected you, or me, we would maybe feel very different, so I think Euthanasia is an extremely emotional topic, and requires extremely careful handling from the legislative end, but, it should be available.
Yes Larissa I agree wholeheartedly. It’s an extremely emotive and difficult decision. And perhaps it could be looked at from the perspective that if a severely depressed individual feels suicidal but does not go through with it, there is hope for them of a better future. Having come very close myself on a number of occasions I have to say in that moment I couldn’t see things getting better, yet they have. So perhaps it shouldn’t be on offer in cases of severe mental illness. And again not having experienced what that lady went through I am only speculating on how I imagine I would feel. Maybe as you say I would feel differently if I was affected by it myself.
You’d hardly call painful bone cancer a temporary problem. And suicide is the wrong word to use in such a situation I’d call it logic
At the moment, once a person is in hospital, and is close to dying, they are given morphine to ‘ease their passage’ which basically sends them on their way comfortably. Why we are not entitled to request this ourselves, I cannot understand.
Important piece of legislation from my local TD, John Halligan, the man I voted for in the last election.
John is a hard working man of the people who has not forgotten his roots since taking up his seat in the Dail.
A true socialist, one of genuine few in government.
Hopefully he will be supported in the passing of this bill.
(no doubt the government will try to scupper it and make it a promise conditional upon being re-elected)
@ Tommy I have no idea what John Halligan’s policies in general are but I do agree with him wholeheartedly in relation to this issue. I can think of nothing worse, personally, than being just surviving & totally dependant on others for my most basic needs, surely if a person is in such pain, possibly physically and mentally that living seems almost unbearable they should, with all due respect, be allowed to chose to exit this life with whatever little bit of dignity they have left. I hope this will get the due support it deserves from all parties but I doubt it as unfortunately that is not how politics work in Ireland!
Tommy – pleasantly surprised in your stance on this.
Ditto!
I totally welcome this bill. ASAP.
What Marie Flemming went through was a disgrace. If there is a right to life in the Constitution then there should also be a right to die a dignified death.
This is an issue on which a referendum would be most welcome. Personally I do not fear death but I do fear the manner of my dying
On the many occasions I’ve heard john Halligan speak in the Dail he’s always come across as honest, sincere and decent. Long may he continue to be a public representative.
I have been very moved by the openness of people here particularly Fiona and Larissa and I thank you both and wish you well. It’s not often I find myself so inspired and never on The Journal!
3 years ago my Mum sat me down for a chat. She spoke of her life, her family, her love, happiness and lack of any regrets. She hugged me tightly and told me how much she loved me. She had this conversation with each of her 5 children and she concluded each with that loving embrace and said “goodbye ” to each of us and our Dad to whom she has been married for over 60 years.
Mum had just been diagnosed with dementia and we all began a journey together then.
She knew all that lay ahead and wanted to address her family with her full faculties before they declined.
She did not fear death and if she could, she would have peacefully and happily closed her eyes for the longest sleep surrounded by everyone she loved.
Today our mum lies in a hospital bed mostly unaware of who we are. She requires constant care for all of her functions. Sometimes she is aware enough to be confused and terrified. Our mum slowly faded to this. We remain always with her, never leaving her alone for the past 3 months since being hospitalized.
Dementia is the cruelest of things that takes everything slowly and painfully. Mums precious memories have been stolen one by one, her identity dismantled in front of those who love her most. She never feared death, she feared living…… like this
I support this bill and wish it had been there for Mam.
Thanks.
@David. I’m sorry for your mother or anyone else’s mother who had to suffer through this terrible illness and it’s a perfect t example of why I will be fully supporting this bill. You never said wheter your mam would have chosen euthanasia if it were available to her here. Well wheter she would have or not, she was robbed of that choice. Ireland is progressing, albeit slowly but surely, as the RCC loose their grip on the masses. (Thats a pun), and hopefully, none of us will have to suffer like your mam as a result of archaic religious ethos.
Christ, that was hard to read. Thank you for sharing what is clearly a difficult story.
Totally agree with John Halligan on this issue, but I fear the holy Mary wing of the oireachtas will not permit this to go ahead.
Back to RTE again. Decades behind the times. They should have research carried out on behalf of the public, detailed research, finding out what people think as a nation. It should have been done years ago.
I know if I am in a situation where I might slowly suffer before I die, I want the option. I don’t think I would have the guts to do it but I at least want the option. And before all the Nuys claim it will be used to murder burdensome old family members, I think strict legislation is needed and consent is required from the individual with the support of a terminal diagnosis.
Completely agree with this bill. The right to bodily autonomy must include a right to die. It’s going to be a long wait until this ever becomes a reality though, the best we can hope for at the moment is protection for those who help someone end their life.
Its an unnatural way to die. I believe the process of death should not be uninterupted as God intended it to be.
Well we let the USA make that decision on behalf of you and your God John.
Double negative here. Did ‘God’ intend dying to be interrupted?
Human beings should not be subjected to suffering and indignity just to appease your religious beliefs.
I’m a proud dual citizen Paul as I have stated on the blog before with a keen interest in rugby. My input is valued among the 3 people above that have thumbed up my comment. I believe I have just a right to share my opinion as you do, whether you follow the teachings of the Buddha or not.
small typo here Eamonn, thanks for the spot. I’m glad you agree with my opinion also.
John, do you believe you have a right to force your opinion and beliefs on others?
I’m getting a morality lecture from Socrates, seen it all now. Repent while you still can you’re a child of God. whether you accept that at the moment is up to.
I’m not lecturing, I’m asking. Can you answer the question???
Your defensiveness is very telling though. Thanks for your insightful response.
Jeebus, pass the popcorn.
A God that would subject his own children to such suffering, misery and indignity as evidenced in the world on a daily basis isn’t even worth worshipping, whether or not he exists.
Any God that allows that is a sadist. I’m not into that…..plus it’s all a figment of somebodys imagination….
@BenSmith Stephen Fry get off the journal.ie and back to sniffin coke ya hedonist.
@socrates I do not intend to force my opinion on anyone and i apologise if it came across that way I was just giving an alternate perspective to the articals topic, from a Buddhist. There is no right and wrong Socrates, there is only God.
We will have to disagree there. There is no God nor proof of such. There is only reality and the reality of dying in pain is very relevant to some that do not share your opinion.
I always thought of Buddism as a frame of mind, ah well.
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
John you are a firefighter. You help stop fires that god created to kill people naturally. You go against nature…
everything is just a frame of mind.
Wrong O’Dwyer, Buddhism isn’t about God, and they have many gods.
@o Dwyer. Il accept the existence of God is you give me one piece of tangible proof he exists. Its not up to atheists to prove he exists, how can they prove something doesn’t exist when the non-existance of a diety leaves no prove of an existence. Ya following me. The burden of proof is on you my friend. Faith John, is the total lack of any tangible proof and therefore, some proof that there are no God/God’s. You cannot assert any statement as truth without having real evidence that can be subjected to trials, tests, examinations ect.
@o Dwyer, you believe the process of death should not be interupted as God intended it to be. Fair enough. Prove to me how you know God didn’t intend to use euthanasia as one of his vastly numerous processes of death.
Tell someone an invisible man in the sky created the world without proof and most will believe you. Tell them the wall jas wet paint on it and they’ll touch it or sniff it to make sure.
So which of the 6000 gods worshipped theoughout human history is being used here as a justification for keeping an individual suffering against their will?
Ah George Carlin. An Irish American legend.
Great, That should keep the senate alive for long after the passing of most of the present incumbants.
Good comments here and no Trolls polluting a sensitive subject
@Dingle. Yet hear you are.
@Dingle. “Here”, my bad. And twas a joke. Cheers.
Personally healed of chronic fatigue , my work colleague healed of coeliac disease another ( works in same building ) healed of manic depression. All medically verifiable.
All medically incurable!
If you do not have faith you really have nothing.Jesus did not say abandon medicine. ..He said believe in him. You’re right to expect nothing if you don’t believe.
Rachel Leggit (a miss Ireland apparently )gives testimony of being healed from cancer…recently reported in the news.
I’m sorry about your friend…but there is a living hope in Christ for healing.
Only believe.
@richard. Again, faith, the total absence of any tangible proof, therefore providing evidence of non-existance. No religious ethos has ever, and I mean ever, replaced a scientific solution to real weld solutions. Tk you for the sentiments in relation to my friend but im sorry, of I got everybody on this planet to pray in unison for my friend to be healed, the prayers will still be ignored. I wont lambast Rachel leggit for her thoughts on how she was cured but I’d rather hear from her medical professions. It is modern medicine that is curing modern health issues, not prayers. Do you attend a doctor when your personally unwell, or go to church. You cannot assert absolute truth without absolute evidence, evidence which can be tested. Sorry Richard, but we’re now educated free thinking people and theres no room.in my life for archaic sky daddy fables.
@richard. Also in refuting your points, I dont “expect” anything in this life. Why do you expect anything ? Its not that we atheists have nothing to live for. Its that we have nothing to die for. We don’t believe in afterlife and are not expecting one. We believe in this one life, and therefore, have everything to live for. You will probably spend alot of time in your life worshipping and worrying. Breaking free from religion was a beautiful awakening for me that took away a lifetime of worrying about death. Your “faith” will never change that, but show me some tangible proof of the existence of a diety, and ill show you how open minded we atheists are.
Also, I’m happy for you that you were cured and im hoping you remember the medical treatments you obviously received that healed you.
Richard, prove it
@socrates. Thats just it. Richard can’t talk about a second coming without proving the first. Richard, stare into an empty room, and in that room you will see every human who has ever proved the existence of a diety. And while your at it, you can also check out every person who has ever disproved evolution. But you my friend would certainly make me doubt Darwins theories. I really am keenly awaiting to hear back from you. I’m very open minded especially when faced with tangible evidence.
Richard may your God help and cure you of your delusions
To be clear, I do not support this. The reason why is the same reason I support the principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I honour those who wish to take their lives but can’t, because the laws that force them to live on, also stop those who would mentally abuse their elders, make them feel as if they needed to kill themselves to support their children. In effect, the ill who wish to die are giving their lives so that the suicidal & those forced to suicide may live.
That said, I am not one to ask for prosecution of those who act in such exceptional circumstances. But I want every such death brought to a formal setting where the question is asked “was this person killed by there own will? Or was that will forced upon them?”. Tough? Yes. But so is our legal system. Better a person goes free who is a criminal than a person goes to prison who is not a criminal. Better a person lives that wants to die than a person dies who wants to live.
This idea of “dignity” in death, is an abhorrent distraction to me. A buzzword. This is about the avoidance of suffering, nothing else. There is no dignity in death. We all end up the same way. All of us will. The only people who can claim dignity in death are those who use their death to help the lives of others. The gentleman who shared his death to cancer in those anti-smoking ads, organ donors, and medical science donations come to mind. To serve others, that is dignity.
To be clear about legal proceedings, I expect every time an armed member of the Gardai kills someone in the line of duty, that that death is scrutinised by an inquiry. I expect no less if euthanasia is something that enters the public domain in Ireland.
@Colm. Your very articulate and you make some interesting and good points but I disagree with your view point in general. My only question to you is when you say “but I want every such death brought to a formal setting where the question is asked….”, would you not agree that it would be a far better idea, and one that might satisfy your paranoia about this bill being misused, to have these cases brought before a formal setting and judged wheter to me legal / illegal and therefore, allowed/disallowed, before the procedure is administered ?
I can’t say I disagree with the idea, but I would make a point of there being an inquiry after the fact for every euthanisation regardless of what goes before. The coroner’s court would be a suitable setting in my mind. The important thing is that every single death be scrutinised after the fact, to examine that it was done in mercy, that it was done in a merciful way, that there was no other option. Yes, you could do legal formal proceedings before, but that’s no good if you get a ruling in favour of euthanasia, only to hear a shotgun in the lobby as the deceased’s loved one decides any delay is too much, and takes it in their own hands to end their partner’s misery. There needs to be inquiry after the fact to establish that, yes, all that could be done was done, and what was done was done properly. Thankfully, these cases are rare enough that we can do this with good scrutiny.
I don’t actively oppose euthanasia, but I will do nothing to support it. I’m sorry.
@Colm. Your basically calling for reviews of all cases post mortem. And you have a passive aggressive attitude towards euthanasia who choose is fair enough but your sitting on the fence. I’m just suggesting that if procedures were in place to preview all requests for euthanasia with scrutiny, and having been investigated on a case by case basis, a decision could be made to either judge wheter the procedure is legal or illegal in the eyes of the law, and therefore either deny or grant permission to the applicant to undergo the procedure having satisfied all specified proofs and due diligence. I invisage your suggestion would only then be in place to basically, review the procedure post mortem, and conclude wheter the procedure was administered corectly and the patient passed on with comfort and dignity. I would be happy with these type of protections in place and maybe something similar might satisfy your suspicions, which are fair and reasonabke in my eyes.
Who choose ? “Which”. Apologies.
Up to 90 years ago cremation was considered against gods will and was illegal. People rioted against the burning of dead bodies as wholly immoral when laws were changed. In years to come society will wonder how inhumane we were in making people suffer till their death.
have your say