Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on August 23, 2020, 06:14:36 PM
-
I've just read, in the 'New Humanist', a review of a book called 'O, Let Me Not Get Alzheimer's, Sweet Heaven!', by a retired medical doctor called Colin Brewer, which discusses this issue. The difference between the two, as I understand it, is who performs the final act: if a doctor gives a patient a lethal drug, and the patient swallows it, that's assisted suicide, but if the doctor injects the lethal drug into the patient's vein, that's euthanasia. If life support is withdrawn at the patient's request, and the patient is an adult who is mentally capable, that is neither, and is already legal in the UK. I stand to be corrected on the preceding, provided the correcter knows what they're talking about, and provides evidence.
The review discusses the argument made by opposers that vulnerable people may be pressurised into requesting euthanasia or assisted suicide, but says that there is very little evidence from countries and regions that have already legalised it that that happens, and makes the interesting point that pressure in the opposite direction may also happen: people who'd rather be dead being pressurised to hang on to the bitter end.
It also seems to me that many opponents argue dishonestly; they come out with the argument just mentioned, because they know ordinary people are more likely to be persuaded by seemingly pragmatic, utilitarian arguments, but the real reason for their opposition is religious.
OK, let the argy-bargy begin.
-
I've just read, in the 'New Humanist', a review of a book called 'O, Let Me Not Get Alzheimer's, Sweet Heaven!', by a retired medical doctor called Colin Brewer, which discusses this issue. The difference between the two, as I understand it, is who performs the final act: if a doctor gives a patient a lethal drug, and the patient swallows it, that's assisted suicide, but if the doctor injects the lethal drug into the patient's vein, that's euthanasia. If life support is withdrawn at the patient's request, and the patient is an adult who is mentally capable, that is neither, and is already legal in the UK. I stand to be corrected on the preceding, provided the correcter knows what they're talking about, and provides evidence.
The review discusses the argument made by opposers that vulnerable people may be pressurised into requesting euthanasia or assisted suicide, but says that there is very little evidence from countries and regions that have already legalised it that that happens, and makes the interesting point that pressure in the opposite direction may also happen: people who'd rather be dead being pressurised to hang on to the bitter end.
It also seems to me that many opponents argue dishonestly; they come out with the argument just mentioned, because they know ordinary people are more likely to be persuaded by seemingly pragmatic, utilitarian arguments, but the real reason for their opposition is religious.
OK, let the argy-bargy begin.
Another area where those in power are wilfully ignoring the wishes of the large majority of the UK's population.
-
I am of the opinion that everyone of sound mind should be able to opt for assisted suicide in the event of them getting dementia or having a terminal illness. The medic should be able to administer the lethal dose by pills or injection, as long as they have written permission to do so.
When my father was in terrible pain suffering from terminal prostate cancer, my sisters and I requested that the doctor upped his painkiller dose so our father would die peacefully. Our request was granted and he died within hours of this happening.
-
For me anyway the core question is, to quote the title of a well-know play: who's life is it anyway?
My answer is that it's essentially my life, though others may have a casual interest in it, and provided my mental faculties (such as they are) remain intact then it remains my life: currently I'm quite keen on preserving it 'as is'.
To anyone who says it isn't my life, or tells me that it is 'God's', I say to them that they can go fuck off.
-
Another area where those in power are wilfully ignoring the wishes of the large majority of the UK's population.
Argumentum ad populum.
-
I am of the opinion that everyone of sound mind should be able to opt for assisted suicide in the event of them getting dementia or having a terminal illness. The medic should be able to administer the lethal dose by pills or injection, as long as they have written permission to do so.
When my father was in terrible pain suffering from terminal prostate cancer, my sisters and I requested that the doctor upped his painkiller dose so our father would die peacefully. Our request was granted and he died within hours of this happening.
So you asked the doctor to break the law - doesn't that make you 'scum'?
-
Probably to some posters surprise I am very cautious on this issue. I can see that in an ideal system with plenty of checks and balances that this sounds like a humane, decent thing - euthanasia that is.
Why then do I feel uneasy? Probably because I don't trust our system of government to do the hard work to enable those checks and balances to be put in place. If they do it, they'll farm it out to some friends who run non-existent ferries or who have stocks of non-existent PPE and let them come up with a system.
There is though more to it than that, I don't feel comfortable with a system that hastens peoples death. I know all the arguments - if they were sane when they declared their wishes, if they are in horrendous pain, if they are suffering from terrible life sapping dementia, then why not, you ask?
And I don't have an answer for you - other than it doesn't feel right to me. I know that's not logical or rational and as a non-religious type I certainly don't hold with it being an offence against God, but I don't like it and it worries me because I can see it being open to abuse due to the laissez faire attitude current governments adopt concerning most issues
There's something else, however, a gut feeling I can't shake that it is on some very basic level of humanity, wrong.
It makes little sense to me, so I expect it to make even less to any of you. There it is.
-
I understand Trentyoyager's position and there is no easy answer but telling someone they have to suffer pain and degradation because you don't trust others....
-
Argumentum ad populum.
No, it isn't. In a democracy, the fact that a large majority want something, while not trumping every other consideration, is a valid argument.
-
No, it isn't. In a democracy, the fact that a large majority want something, while not trumping every other consideration, is a valid argument.
Doesn't matter if it is a democracy or not. There is no argument that is made better simply by numbers. If a democracy voted that the world was flat would it be a valid argument?
-
Doesn't matter if it is a democracy or not. There is no argument that is made better simply by numbers. If a democracy voted that the world was flat would it be a valid argument?
No, of course not, and if euthanasia is a bad idea, it's still a bad idea even if the great majority want it, but the point of democracy is not that it produces the best government and laws possible, but that it produces the government and laws that a country deserves, because they voted for it.
-
No, of course not, and if euthanasia is a bad idea, it's still a bad idea even if the great majority want it, but the point of democracy is not that it produces the best government and laws possible, but that it produces the government and laws that a country deserves, because they voted for it.
So simply saying the majority of people want something gives exactly no value to the argument being right.
-
So simply saying the majority of people want something gives exactly no value to the argument being right.
[Sigh...] Well, obviously. Can we now get back to debating euthanasia and assisted suicide, please?
-
So simply saying the majority of people want something gives exactly no value to the argument being right.
Surely the difference is that the question of the Earth being flat is a matter of fact.
The other is a measure of peoples subjective opinion on a question.
If most people think in a particular way, then it is a fact that that opinion currently is most popular.
-
[Sigh...] Well, obviously. Can we now get back to debating euthanasia and assisted suicide, please?
Which means when ippy mentioned it, I was correct in pointing out that it was an ad populum. And we still are discussing the arguments on this because all I pointed out was that it was an invalid argument - something you agree with.
-
Surely the difference is that the question of the Earth being flat is a matter of fact.
The other is a measure of peoples subjective opinion on a question.
If most people think in a particular way, then it is a fact that that opinion currently is most popular.
Which exactly illustrates why the numbers of people who believe anything is an invalid argument.
-
Which exactly illustrates why the numbers of people who believe anything is an invalid argument.
Why?
If you want to measure opinion, then it's perfect.
-
Why?
If you want to measure opinion, then it's perfect.
and if you want to argue that something is 'right', it's worthless. It isn't an argument.
-
For me anyway the core question is, to quote the title of a well-know play: who's life is it anyway?
My answer is that it's essentially my life, though others may have a casual interest in it, and provided my mental faculties (such as they are) remain intact then it remains my life: currently I'm quite keen on preserving it 'as is'.
To anyone who says it isn't my life, or tells me that it is 'God's', I say to them that they can go fuck off.
I agree with you Gordon. You are at liberty to claim your life as your own. In fact it is so your own and not anybody elses the idea of finding someone else to end it for you is IMHO contradictory.
Your life, you end it.
-
and if you want to argue that something is 'right', it's worthless. It isn't an argument.
Agreed.
But it has used in other areas just not when you are talking about facts.
For opinions they are perfect.
-
I agree with you Gordon. You are at liberty to claim your life as your own. In fact it is so your own and not anybody elses the idea of finding someone else to end it for you is IMHO contradictory.
Your life, you end it.
What if you are no longer able to do it, but you can register your request for it to be done.
I cannot fill my teeth but I can request it
-
I agree with you Gordon. You are at liberty to claim your life as your own. In fact it is so your own and not anybody elses the idea of finding someone else to end it for you is IMHO contradictory.
Your life, you end it.
And if you can't? And you might need help. You just say to someone begging to have the pain and denigration stopped tgat you want them to suffer that. That you think it is good for them to be in pain.
-
Agreed.
But it has used in other areas just not when you are talking about facts.
For opinions they are perfect.
But is not in itself an argument, so as ippy used it is exactly an an ad pop fallacy.
-
And if you can't? And you might need help. You just say to someone begging to have the pain and denigration stopped tgat you want them to suffer that. That you think it is good for them to be in pain.
If it is too late, it is too late it is your life, you have claimed it. I would administer painkiller.
I didn't think you minded a bit of denigration?
-
If it is too late, it is too late it is your life, you have claimed it. I would administer painkiller.
I didn't think you minded a bit of denigration?
Your inability to deal with argument is tedious. Ippy's post was an ad pop. You have already agreed that
-
Your inability to deal with argument is tedious. Ippy's post was an ad pop. You have already agreed that
Oh yes I'm a bit fucked off with the current ''will of the people thing'' at the moment. Inability to deal with argument? I'm not having that........
-
Oh yes I'm a bit fucked off with the current ''will of the people thing'' at the moment. Inability to deal with argument? I'm not having that........
It's a pity that that is exactly your problem.
-
Your inability to deal with argument is tedious. Ippy's post was an ad pop. You have already agreed that
OK, ok! It was a fucking ad pop! (It wasn't, but let's pretend it was.) Can we please get on with discussing the thread topic now?
-
OK, ok! It was a fucking ad pop! (It wasn't, but let's pretend it was.) Can we please get on with discussing the thread topic now?
No, because it was and you want to then say it wasn't. This is part of the argument made by ippy on the thread. It's partof the thread topic.
-
I agree with you Gordon. You are at liberty to claim your life as your own. In fact it is so your own and not anybody elses the idea of finding someone else to end it for you is IMHO contradictory.
Your life, you end it.
I've no plans to do so any time soon, but your point takes us from my view that, in principle, my life is my own and decisions about it are mine, to the arrangements that might apply should I choose to end it. First there is the basis of establishing that I am mentally competent to decide to end my life and, second, the choice of methods that are available for me to do so, and especially where I would then need to access the means of suicide and/or be dependent on others to carry out whatever means I decided on.
I don't think it is contradictory to ask for assistance to do something that I can reasonably decide I want done but can't do it for myself, in this case perhaps due to illness, but I also need to consider the roles of any others in terms of influence they may have over my initial decision to end my life, in agreeing (or not) that I am competent to decide to end my life and, of course, if I needed the involvement of others to carry it out.
I suspect these arrangements come in cans labelled 'Worms'.
-
For me anyway, the core question is, to quote the title of a well-known play: who's life is it anyway?
My answer is that it's essentially my life, though others may have a casual interest in it, and provided my mental faculties (such as they are) remain intact then it remains my life: currently, I'm quite keen on preserving it 'as is'.
To anyone who says it isn't my life or tells me that it is 'God's', I say to them that they can go fuck off.
Surely you can be a bit more forceful than "Fuck off"?
-
Probably to some posters surprise I am very cautious on this issue. I can see that in an ideal system with plenty of checks and balances that this sounds like a humane, decent thing - euthanasia that is.
Why then do I feel uneasy? Probably because I don't trust our system of government to do the hard work to enable those checks and balances to be put in place. If they do it, they'll farm it out to some friends who run non-existent ferries or who have stocks of non-existent PPE and let them come up with a system.
There is though more to it than that, I don't feel comfortable with a system that hastens peoples death. I know all the arguments - if they were sane when they declared their wishes, if they are in horrendous pain, if they are suffering from terrible life sapping dementia, then why not, you ask?
And I don't have an answer for you - other than it doesn't feel right to me. I know that's not logical or rational and as a non-religious type I certainly don't hold with it being an offence against God, but I don't like it and it worries me because I can see it being open to abuse due to the laissez faire attitude current governments adopt concerning most issues
There's something else, however, a gut feeling I can't shake that it is on some very basic level of humanity, wrong.
It makes little sense to me, so I expect it to make even less to any of you. There it is.
Agreed!
-
I understand Trentyoyager's position and there is no easy answer but telling someone they have to suffer pain and degradation because you don't trust others....
Agreed!
-
So you asked the doctor to break the law - doesn't that make you 'scum'?
He didn't break the law, so there!
-
I've no plans to do so any time soon, but your point takes us from my view that, in principle, my life is my own and decisions about it are mine, to the arrangements that might apply should I choose to end it. First there is the basis of establishing that I am mentally competent to decide to end my life and, second, the choice of methods that are available for me to do so, and especially where I would then need to access the means of suicide and/or be dependent on others to carry out whatever means I decided on.
I don't think it is contradictory to ask for assistance to do something that I can reasonably decide I want done but can't do it for myself, in this case perhaps due to illness, but I also need to consider the roles of any others in terms of influence they may have over my initial decision to end my life, in agreeing (or not) that I am competent to decide to end my life and, of course, if I needed the involvement of others to carry it out.
I suspect these arrangements come in cans labelled 'Worms'.
I notice that this post is mainly if not exclusively written from your perspective.
There is no national assisted death service from which can draw a service for granted.
You are asking other people to change, you are wanting the abolition of the hypocratic oath.
The lack of consideration for those expected to do this is an overwhelmingly apparent feature of the pro assisted death movement.
-
If they were legalised, there'd be a conscience clause for doctors who regard religious dogma as more important than compassion.
BTW, your new signature indicates that you STILL don't understand the burden of proof.
-
I notice that this post is mainly if not exclusively written from your perspective.
There is no national assisted death service from which can draw a service for granted.
You are asking other people to change, you are wanting the abolition of the hypocratic oath.
The lack of consideration for those expected to do this is an overwhelmingly apparent feature of the pro assisted death movement.
Just to note it's the Hippocratic Oath, and it isn't taken by British doctors.
-
If they were legalised, there'd be a conscience clause for doctors who regard religious dogma as more important than compassion.
BTW, your new signature indicates that you STILL don't understand the burden of proof.
Firstly this is not exclusively a religious issue since there are religious and non religious people on both sides of the argument.
Secondly there is some contention over whether atheism or agnosticism should be the default position.
No change for theists.
-
Just to note it's the Hippocratic Oath, and it isn't taken by British doctors.
Ah so it’s “ You are British luvvy and you’ll do whatever procedure you’re required to “
As you wish Dr Fingele.
-
Ah so it’s “ You are British luvvy and you’ll do whatever procedure you’re required to “
As you wish Dr Fingele.
No.
-
This debate has come up before and my position hasn't changed at all. I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure. Personally I don't support either assisted suicide(as in Switzerland) or voluntary euthanasia(as in Holland). Our aim is to persuade parliament that the law needs to be changed to be more in line with that of Oregon(changed in 1997 and followed by many other US states such as California, Colorado, Washington DC). I appreciate the discomfort that some people may feel about the whole idea but, given that adequate and rigorous safeguards are applied, I fieel the need for compassion in this whole area is paramount.
-
Trent:-
Why then do I feel uneasy? Probably because I don't trust our system of government to do the hard work to enable those checks and balances to be put in place. If they do it, they'll farm it out to some friends who run non-existent ferries or who have stocks of non-existent PPE and let them come up with a system.
....
I agree.
Also agree with this from enki:-
I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure.
-
This debate has come up before and my position hasn't changed at all. I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure. Personally I don't support either assisted suicide(as in Switzerland) or voluntary euthanasia(as in Holland). Our aim is to persuade parliament that the law needs to be changed to be more in line with that of Oregon(changed in 1997 and followed by many other US states such as California, Colorado, Washington DC). I appreciate the discomfort that some people may feel about the whole idea but, given that adequate and rigorous safeguards are applied, I feel the need for compassion in this whole area is paramount.
You support assisted dying, but you don't support either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia? I'm confused. Please explain.
-
I would have thought assisted dying and assisted suicide were one and the same.
-
I would have thought assisted dying and assisted suicide were one and the same.
Me too - what is the difference? Enki - as you've indicated you support assisted dying but not assisted suicide can you explain the difference please.
-
You support assisted dying, but you don't support either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia? I'm confused. Please explain.
Fair enough.
Assisted dying gives terminally ill, mentally competent adults choice and control over the time of death.
Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to die either with help or directly at the hands of a medical practitioner.
-
Fair enough.
Assisted dying gives terminally ill, mentally competent adults choice and control over the time of death.
Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to die either with help or directly at the hands of a medical practitioner.
That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.
-
That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.
That's up to you. I was asked to describe the differences, which I have done.
-
That's up to you. I was asked to describe the differences, which I have done.
There is no difference.
-
That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.
As I read Enki, it is more to do with the state of the patient that defines whether or not they can be assisted with their death according to this definition. So somebody who is suffering from terminal lung cancer could opt for this method whereas somebody who has perhaps had a stroke and is left immobile with little speech would not be eligible as their condition however unpleasant it is, is not terminal.
-
As I read Enki, it is more to do with the state of the patient that defines whether or not they can be assisted with their death according to this definition. So somebody who is suffering from terminal lung cancer could opt for this method whereas somebody who has perhaps had a stroke and is left immobile with little speech would not be eligible as their condition however unpleasant it is, is not terminal.
Quite correct, Trent.
-
Quite correct, Trent.
So in your opinion only people who are terminally ill should opt for assisted suicide, even if if their lives are unbearable due to a condition, which isn't treatable?
-
So in your opinion only people who are terminally ill should opt for assisted suicide, even if if their lives are unbearable due to a condition, which isn't treatable?
This might be of help in understanding my position.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/
-
This might be of help in understanding my position.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/
I still cannot see the difference.
-
This might be of help in understanding my position.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/
Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.
At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.
-
What is it with this topic?
Is someone looking for a new way to describe Covid deaths so its less embarrassing for the Tories?
-
What is it with this topic?
Is someone looking for a new way to describe Covid deaths so its less embarrassing for the atomise?
Ehhhhhh?
-
Ehhhhhh?
Sorry predictive text. Something we don’t need a machine for when it comes to your posts..
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry predictive text. Something we don’t need a machine for when it comes to your posts..
;D ;D ;D ;D
Your previous post didn't make any sense, nothing new there of course. ::)
-
What is the current position on anyone that assists some other person that wants to end it all on their journey to Switzerland?
What happens to those that assist when they return to the U K, I don't recollect seeing or hearing of anyone being prosecuted for giving such assistance?
Why not cut out the journey bit save these people all of the extra grief for them and those that accompany them?
Why not do the right thing in the first place here, with the application of as many of safeguards possible?
Having said about safeguards we all know they will not be perfect but in the majority of peoples minds here in the U K it'll make it a lot better than how things stand at the moment.
If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.
-
Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.
At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.
The Dignity in Dying Campaign suggest that the cut off point is a prognosis of six months or less to live.
I agree that it is a difficult and nuanced area to propose legislation for but my feeling is that the legislation needs clarifying and should reflect real compassion albeit with a strong regard for powerful safeguards. Some time ago I listened to and talked to a lady whose husband wished to end his life at a point of his choosing(he had a terminal illness), and, with the full acquiescence of her family, this was carried out abroad. It was at this point I decided to look into the whole idea of assisted dying and became convinced that it was a sensible and compassionate way forward for this country.
-
If enki had just said that he approved of assisted suicide and euthanasia for the terminally ill, but not otherwise, there'd've been no misunderstanding.
-
What is the current position on anyone that assists some other person that wants to end it all on their journey to Switzerland?
What happens to those that assist when they return to the U K, I don't recollect seeing or hearing of anyone being prosecuted for giving such assistance?
Why not cut out the journey bit save these people all of the extra grief for them and those that accompany them?
Why not do the right thing in the first place here, with the application of as many of safeguards possible?
Having said about safeguards we all know they will not be perfect but in the majority of peoples minds here in the U K it'll make it a lot better than how things stand at the moment.
If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.
My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.
-
My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.
You've got my post at the head of some writings of yours Vlad?
What has capitol punishment got to do with assisted dying?
When our U K government eventually brings in a system of assisted dying it won't mean that you or anyone else that doesn't want to be involved will be forced to take part.
All of the U K polls taken about assisted dying have been showing over 80% of the U K's population wishes to have some sort of system set up to help these usually desperate people so why not let them have it, or do you think you know better than this and want to force your point of view on everyone else?
It's not as though when the inevitable happens you or anyone else would be forced to take the assisted dying option.
-
You've got my post at the head of some writings of yours Vlad?
What has capitol punishment got to do with assisted dying?
When our U K government eventually brings in a system of assisted dying it won't mean that you or anyone else that doesn't want to be involved will be forced to take part.
All of the U K polls taken about assisted dying have been showing over 80% of the U K's population wishes to have some sort of system set up to help these usually desperate people so why not let them have it, or do you think you know better than this and want to force your point of view on everyone else?
It's not as though when the inevitable happens you or anyone else would be forced to take the assisted dying option.
When assisted dying takes place and the first case of malpractice happens or report of people forced into it I will be thinking of the guilt and sense of guilt those proponents of it should have.
-
If it was legal to assist someone to die here in the UK, and I was a younger person, I would have no hesitation in training to be one of those assistants.
-
When assisted dying takes place and the first case of malpractice happens or report of people forced into it I will be thinking of the guilt and sense of guilt those proponents of it should have.
When was the last time you saw a perfect piece of legislation and having said that the assisted dying that's legal in Oregon USA is working quiet well without any significant problems so far and on checking with Proff Google it looks like there are ten countries that have legalised A D without hitting any kind of headline news type abuses to be heard of, perhaps you might know about any?
-
If it was legal to assist someone to die here in the UK, and I was a younger person, I would have no hesitation in training to be one of those assistants.
Youre an angel.
-
Youre an angel.
Very true. ;D
-
If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.
Is this all about wanting to stick one on the church,
Removing whatever gets in the way of what you want......or what exactly.
-
Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.
At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.
The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.
Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.
-
The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.
Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.
Completely agree
-
The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.
Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.
I agree.
-
My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.
I can't say whether the thing about executioners being put on trial is true or not but I do remember having an argument with a Christian on this forum - or maybe it was the BBC board - about assisted suicide. He maintained that no deliberate killing should go without a trial however legitimate the reason (ignoring things like wars etc).
In a moment of flippancy, I suggested having the trial before the assisted suicide takes place. If the assistant is found "guilty" they can choose not to do the assisting and nobody actually gets murdered. It's a bit of a useless idea to put the assistant on trial after the alleged suicide and find out only then that what they did was illegal.
Then it occurred to me that this is actually a good idea. I would be in favour of legalising assisted suicide for anybody who wants it as long as a court hearing occurs before the fact that determines that the person requesting assisted suicide is doing it voluntarily and is competent to make such decisions.
-
I can't say whether the thing about executioners being put on trial is true or not but I do remember having an argument with a Christian on this forum - or maybe it was the BBC board - about assisted suicide. He maintained that no deliberate killing should go without a trial however legitimate the reason (ignoring things like wars etc).
In a moment of flippancy, I suggested having the trial before the assisted suicide takes place. If the assistant is found "guilty" they can choose not to do the assisting and nobody actually gets murdered. It's a bit of a useless idea to put the assistant on trial after the alleged suicide and find out only then that what they did was illegal.
Then it occurred to me that this is actually a good idea. I would be in favour of legalising assisted suicide for anybody who wants it as long as a court hearing occurs before the fact that determines that the person requesting assisted suicide is doing it voluntarily and is competent to make such decisions.
I don't think a court hearing is a good idea, partly because courts are far too busy anyway. An assessment by two psychiatrists should be the route to take, in my opinion.
-
I don't think a court hearing is a good idea, partly because courts are far too busy anyway.
Interesting idea: suspend justice because the courts are busy.
An assessment by two psychiatrists should be the route to take, in my opinion.
Yes but psychiatrists are busy.
The court hearing is necessary because the deliberate killing of a human being is a serious matter and, I think, requires due process. I'm not suggesting that there should be a jury trial, but you do need a safeguard to determine that the person seeking to end their life is doing it entirely voluntarily and has not been coerced in any way. Psychiatric reports would be part of it but I think the psychiatrists must make their reports under oath because of the seriousness of the consequences of them lying.
-
Interesting idea: suspend justice because the courts are busy.
Yes but psychiatrists are busy.
The court hearing is necessary because the deliberate killing of a human being is a serious matter and, I think, requires due process. I'm not suggesting that there should be a jury trial, but you do need a safeguard to determine that the person seeking to end their life is doing it entirely voluntarily and has not been coerced in any way. Psychiatric reports would be part of it but I think the psychiatrists must make their reports under oath because of the seriousness of the consequences of them lying.
They don't have court hearings in countries where assisted dying is legal.
-
They don't have court hearings in countries where assisted dying is legal.
And? That isn't an argument against jeremyp's approach.
-
They don't have court hearings in countries where assisted dying is legal.
Good for them.
I'm not just in favour of assisted dying, I'm in favour of it being legal to assist somebody who wants to commit suicide to escape a chronic medical condition even if it is not terminal. However, people who are against it often point out to me that it can be abused. People could be coerced into committing suicide or their consent could be forged to cover up a murder. A hearing in a legal setting with witnesses under oath is, I think , the appropriate level of safeguard when you are trying to decide whether it is OK to kill somebody - or help them to kill themselves.
-
I've just signed this petition (https://humanism.org.uk/what-you-can-do-to-help/assisted-dying-inquiry/?fbclid=IwAR0jck_tzNO_5Gi_amBmWDI4fWJSPVK7dMNyCxHUak33MsucZE90tJTeeNM#Sign) from Humanists UK.
-
I've just signed this petition (https://humanism.org.uk/what-you-can-do-to-help/assisted-dying-inquiry/?fbclid=IwAR0jck_tzNO_5Gi_amBmWDI4fWJSPVK7dMNyCxHUak33MsucZE90tJTeeNM#Sign) from Humanists UK.
I have signed too.
-
I've just signed this petition (https://humanism.org.uk/what-you-can-do-to-help/assisted-dying-inquiry/?fbclid=IwAR0jck_tzNO_5Gi_amBmWDI4fWJSPVK7dMNyCxHUak33MsucZE90tJTeeNM#Sign) from Humanists UK.
Good. Even for those who think that the idea of assisted dying should go further, I think the idea of a public inquiry is a positive first step.
-
Good. Even for those who think that the idea of assisted dying should go further, I think the idea of a public inquiry is a positive first step.
I've signed but have to admit that I found some of the rhetoric in the 'preamble' a bit annoying. The idea that . 'Religious lobbyists and individual MPs have been able to put their stories out of mind and treat those calling for an urgent change in the law as mere statistics' seems to mischaracterise those opposed in an attempted ad hominem to say that those on the other side of the argument are not sincere.
-
I've signed but have to admit that I found some of the rhetoric in the 'preamble' a bit annoying. The idea that . 'Religious lobbyists and individual MPs have been able to put their stories out of mind and treat those calling for an urgent change in the law as mere statistics' seems to mischaracterise those opposed in an attempted ad hominem to say that those on the other side of the argument are not sincere.
I agree. They haven't been able to put "their stories out of mind". I assume "they" are people who would have benefitted by assisted dying being legal. Otherwise, why are we discussing this now? Also, what does "treat those calling for an urgent change in the law as mere statistics" even mean?
I think it's OK to criticise people who are opposed to assisted dying "because God says so", but even these people frequently come up with arguments to support their position that must be addressed.
I haven't signed the petition, not because of any misgivings but because I think they rarely do any good.
-
I don't think a court hearing is a good idea, partly because courts are far too busy anyway. An assessment by two psychiatrists should be the route to take, in my opinion.
Busy courts is not an excuse for anything and I can think of one need for a team of psychiatrists that is immediately more pressing.
If there aren’t the courts for it, it shouldn’t be happening end of.
Jeremy’s thinking is sound with regard.
I can’t help thinking that in fifty years time when Boris Johnson’s sons are fighting a civil war for succession people will be arguing about the disparity between the dignity afforded to NHS second hand organ stripping units and private end of life care .
-
I take it you are against assisted dying?
-
I take it you are against assisted dying?
I think it’s an issue which it’s supporters have demonstrated little thought or concern for those who don’t see it as just another simple life fix.
-
I think it’s an issue which it’s supporters have demonstrated little thought or concern for those who don’t see it as just another simple life fix.
I wonder if you were suffering from a very painful terminal illness if you might consider ending your own life, with help if necessary, assuming it was legal?
-
I think it’s an issue which it’s supporters have demonstrated little thought or concern for those who don’t see it as just another simple life fix.
I think that's an unwarranted generalisation. I think many of the supporters have thought it through.
-
I wonder if you were suffering from a very painful terminal illness if you might consider ending your own life, with help if necessary, assuming it was legal?
I’m sure I would but I might also consider not involving anybody else and going out in what I would consider the better way. At the moment it seems for me more dignified.
For those that chose to involve others I would want at least Jeremy’s safe guards ahead of any such death and. An enquiry afterwards with the heaviest of penalties for malpractice (life?) since a Doctor Shipman type in a legalised setting might ultimately be responsible for hundreds of deaths.
-
I think that's an unwarranted generalisation. I think many of the supporters have thought it through.
If we could see their working out and conclusions then.
-
If we could see their working out and conclusions then.
Well you've seen mine.
-
Well you've seen mine.
I have Jeremy and i’ve Mentioned them in dispatches.
-
I think it’s an issue which it’s supporters have demonstrated little thought or concern for those who don’t see it as just another simple life fix.
Given you believe in an objective morality, could you demonstrate it in this instance? That is what you think is the objective moral position, and why it is objective?
-
Given you believe in an objective morality, could you demonstrate it in this instance? That is what you think is the objective moral position, and why it is objective?
I’d like to help you any way I can. Before we start could you just go over what you mean by objective moral position and why you think I am a believer in it thank you.
-
I’d like to help you any way I can. Before we start could you just go over what you mean by objective moral position and why you think I am a believer in it thank you.
You believe that true or false values can be given to moral positions. You have stated you are a moral realist. That's what that involvez.
-
You believe that true or false values can be given to moral positions. You have stated you are a moral realist. That's what that involvez.
I don’t think I’ve said true or false values Can be given to moral positions. Value in morality is expressed in terms of good, better, evil, ought and ought not. How are you proposing to fit true or false values in?
-
I don’t think I’ve said true or false values Can be given to moral positions. Value in morality is expressed in terms of good, better, evil, ought and ought not. How are you proposing to fit true or false values in?
I'm not. It's what forms part of moral realism. All of those terms are evaluated as true or false within it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
-
I think it’s an issue which it’s supporters have demonstrated little thought or concern for those who don’t see it as just another simple life fix.
And in English...?
-
I've signed but have to admit that I found some of the rhetoric in the 'preamble' a bit annoying. The idea that . 'Religious lobbyists and individual MPs have been able to put their stories out of mind and treat those calling for an urgent change in the law as mere statistics' seems to mischaracterise those opposed in an attempted ad hominem to say that those on the other side of the argument are not sincere.
Most of them aren't. As with opposition to abortion, they go public with apparently pragmatic, utilitarian arguments that don't bear much examination, because they know that those are the arguments that might sway the gen. pub., but their real opposition is religious.
-
Most of them aren't. As with opposition to abortion, they go public with apparently pragmatic, utilitarian arguments that don't bear much examination, because they know that those are the arguments that might sway the gen. pub., but their real opposition is religious.
That doesn't make them insincere, nor does it justify the lazy othering of them, nor using that as an ad hom rather than make the argument.
-
Pleased to see that New Zealand has voted to accept that assisted dying should become legal.
-
Pleased to see that New Zealand has voted to accept that assisted dying should become legal.
It will be interesting to see if medical professionals are coerced into providing this service.
-
It will be interesting to see if medical professionals are coerced into providing this service.
As opposed to being coerced into watching people suffer in pain when they want to end it?
-
As opposed to being coerced into watching people suffer in pain when they want to end it?
Are you saying we should euthenase people in pain or be forced to euthenase people?
-
Are you saying we should euthenase people in pain or be forced to euthenase people?
No. But you are saying you want to tell people that they must suffer pain.
-
No. But you are saying you want to tell people that they must suffer pain.
No, I don't want perfectly serviceable health staff sacked, sued or prosecuted because they won't provide this service.
-
And if the profession were to come out against it perhaps the rest of us should seriously think about shutting the fuck up.
You want to tell people suffering pain to shut up.
-
No, I don't want perfectly serviceable health staff sacked, sued or prosecuted because they won't provide this service.
Vlad takes making shite up for 1000
-
It will be interesting to see if medical professionals are coerced into providing this service.
I doubt it. That's why each case will require the support of two doctors.
-
I doubt it. That's why each case will require the support of two doctors.
But, you see, Appalled is not interested in the views of the medical profession, he is only interested in the views of the church derived from the Bible!
-
And if the profession were to come out against it perhaps the rest of us should seriously think about shutting the fuck up.
It's simple Vlad, if you think assisted suicide is wrong, that's fine, you don't have to go for it, now that's assisted suicide and how you wish to deal with it.
I't's about freedom of choice here, if someone can't bear the pain, or any other extreme discomfort any more and will certainly die whatever happens within say a six month period or so, who are you to tell them whether they can take the choice to go or not, no one is telling you to take assisted suicide.
What gives you the right to choose for others, do you really think that just because you hold some sort of rather vacuous unsupported iron age belief gives you the right to tell others what they can do or not with their lives?
Another area where religion shows just how useless, outmoded and out of touch it is with a realistic and rational world that most of us, here in the UK at least, choose to live in.
ippy.
-
It will be interesting to see if medical professionals are coerced into providing this service.
Are the medical professionals coerced into the current practice of ending some patients life even when those patients cannot and have have not asked them to?
-
No, I don't want perfectly serviceable health staff sacked, sued or prosecuted because they won't provide this service.
Have you any firm evidence that medical or nursing staff will be forced to take part, or are you just desperately trying to come up with arguments against it?
-
Have you any firm evidence that medical or nursing staff will be forced to take part, or are you just desperately trying to come up with arguments against it?
If there is a legal loophole which allows somebody refusing to assist to be pursued in the courts you can bet your whatever someone will pursue it.
-
If there is a legal loophole which allows somebody refusing to assist to be pursued in the courts you can bet your whatever someone will pursue it.
What bollocks you do come out with.
-
But, you see, Appalled is not interested in the views of the medical profession, he is only interested in the views of the church derived from the Bible!
Wee point;
There is no express Biblical view on euthanasia.
True, some folk have interpreted tcertain verses to mean something which accords with their view, but there is ambiguity.
Equally, threre is no definate church stance.
For the most part, we think euthanasia without the express permission of the patient and assessment of qualified medics is out, but assisted dying is not so frowened upon.
-
What bollocks you do come out with.
I believe that like executioners, there should be a subsequent 'trial' after each assisted suicide. Any negligence on the part of euthenisors could perhaps be rewarded with a 'Ten stretch'
-
If there is a legal loophole which allows somebody refusing to assist to be pursued in the courts you can bet your whatever someone will pursue it.
Like all those registrars and vicars who have been sued for not officiating at gay peoples' weddings, you mean?
O.
-
Like all those registrars and vicars who have been sued for not officiating at gay peoples' weddings, you mean?
O.
More like Bakers who dont bake cakes with certain things on them.
-
I believe that like executioners, there should be a subsequent 'trial' after each assisted suicide. Any negligence on the part of euthenisors could perhaps be rewarded with a 'Ten stretch'
I think it would be better to have the "trial" before the assisted suicide. That way, if it turns out that the assisted suicide would be illegal, nobody is dead and nobody needs to go to prison, at least not for murder.
-
If there is a legal loophole which allows somebody refusing to assist to be pursued in the courts you can bet your whatever someone will pursue it.
You've been outvoted in every poll on this subject Vlad, isn't it about time you gave it a rest, all the polls I've seen are in the eighty percentages, grow up.
ippy.
-
You've been outvoted in every poll on this subject Vlad, isn't it about time you gave it a rest, all the polls I've seen are in the eighty percentages, grow up.
ippy.
I'm firmly with the 80%, but that is a dodgy argument. Being popular doesn't make something right.
-
I think it would be better to have the "trial" before the assisted suicide. That way, if it turns out that the assisted suicide would be illegal, nobody is dead and nobody needs to go to prison, at least not for murder.
Good point but having a trial prior to the event is legally unprecedented.
-
You've been outvoted in every poll on this subject Vlad, isn't it about time you gave it a rest, all the polls I've seen are in the eighty percentages, grow up.
ippy.
I didn't realise there was a poll on the possible illegality of or culpability of refusing Euthenasia /assisted suicide.
Perhaps you can reference it.
-
I'm firmly with the 80%, but that is a dodgy argument. Being popular doesn't make something right.
Largely I would agree with what you say about percentages B C, but I really don't think that applies in this particular case, assisted dying isn't being imposed by this much needed legislation it just needs to be a matter of an individual choice we should all be able all be able to make.
ippy.
P S Don't take any notice of Vlad, as usual he has no idea he just wants to be herd.
-
Largely I would agree with what you say about percentages B C, but I really don't think that applies in this particular case, assisted dying isn't being imposed by this much needed legislation it just needs to be a matter of an individual choice we should all be able all be able to make.
ippy.
P S Don't take any notice of Vlad, as usual he has no idea he just wants to be herd.
Doesn't matter. Right is not an argument established by numbers. It's just you using the argumentum ad populum fallacy
-
Good point but having a trial prior to the event is legally unprecedented.
That's why I put "trial" in quotes. What I meant is that, if somebody proposes to commit suicide with assistance, there needs to be some sort of hearing in a legal setting before the suicide goes ahead to certify that it is all above board e.g. the suicide is the decision of the person who wants to die and not anybody else and that the proposed assistant is not being coerced into it either.
-
That's why I put "trial" in quotes. What I meant is that, if somebody proposes to commit suicide with assistance, there needs to be some sort of hearing in a legal setting before the suicide goes ahead to certify that it is all above board e.g. the suicide is the decision of the person who wants to die and not anybody else and that the proposed assistant is not being coerced into it either.
That remains a good point.
-
That's why I put "trial" in quotes. What I meant is that, if somebody proposes to commit suicide with assistance, there needs to be some sort of hearing in a legal setting before the suicide goes ahead to certify that it is all above board e.g. the suicide is the decision of the person who wants to die and not anybody else and that the proposed assistant is not being coerced into it either.
The N Z example looks pretty reasonable to me.
Assisted dying is available in the UK already, if you've enough money, it shouldn't be exclusive.
ippy.
-
More like Bakers who dont bake cakes with certain things on them.
Who won their case, as I recall.
O.
-
Assisted dying is available in the UK already,
Indeed. It was around in 1936 when King George V was hastened to eternity by his physician, Lord Dawson, who spared him the gross indignity of having his death reported in the evening papers.
-
Indeed. It was around in 1936 when King George V was hastened to eternity by his physician, Lord Dawson, who spared him the gross indignity of having his death reported in the evening papers.
H H, Is there supposed some sort of hidden meaning in this post of yours, I was able to understand the words in your post but for me it has no/zero connection with the OP of this thread?
I'm sure that there will always be questionable deeds done by all sorts of people something that hasn't altered from right back into ancient times.
I'm guessing that are you suggesting we shouldn't try to improve our lives and introduce a little more humanity into our laws, because, amazingly, there's sill a few naughty people about that don't obey the rules?
ippy.
-
H H, Is there supposed some sort of hidden meaning in this post of yours, I was able to understand the words in your post but for me it has no/zero connection with the OP of this thread?
I'm sure that there will always be questionable deeds done by all sorts of people something that hasn't altered from right back into ancient times.
I'm guessing that are you suggesting we shouldn't try to improve our lives and introduce a little more humanity into our laws, because, amazingly, there's sill a few naughty people about that don't obey the rules?
ippy.
I think it is more to do with the perception that evening papers were vulgar and the Kings death deserved to be in the proper press in the morning.
Dawson(the Kings physician) wrote that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals". Wiki - but widely known.
-
I think it is more to do with the perception that evening papers were vulgar and the Kings death deserved to be in the proper press in the morning.
Dawson(the Kings physician) wrote that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals". Wiki - but widely known.
Yea Trent, could be, it might have been about the price of fish?
ippy.
-
H H, Is there supposed some sort of hidden meaning in this post of yours, I was able to understand the words in your post but for me it has no/zero connection with the OP of this thread?
The king's doctor was practising euthanasia. I was providing you with a well-known instance of (to use your words) assisted dying.
I know that you have problems with aspects of written language. I ws trying to be ironic Read Trent's reply again and see if you can find some indication of social values at the time.