Euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

They don't have court hearings in countries where assisted dying is legal.

And? That isn't an argument against jeremyp's approach.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Steve H]

I've just signed this petition from Humanists UK.

[Roses]

I've just signed this petition from Humanists UK.

I have signed too.

[Enki]

I've just signed this petition 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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 .

[Roses]

I take it you are against assisted dying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Roses]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

If we could see their working out and conclusions then.

Well you've seen mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you've seen mine.

I have Jeremy and i’ve Mentioned them in dispatches.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Steve H]

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...?

[Steve H]

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.