Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 21, 2018, 01:54:16 PM
-
Will companies involved in this seek to dismantle health and social care in order to maximise profits?
-
Will companies involved in this seek to dismantle health and social care in order to maximise profits?
No but I expect them to target those who believe in a life after death, after all you will just be moving on to another plane, so nothing to fear about an early departure.
-
I find it odd that people who believe they are going to heaven, are often the ones who are desperate to stay down here as long as possible.
-
I find it odd that people who believe they are going to heaven, are often the ones who are desperate to stay down here as long as possible.
Evidence? No, thought not.
-
Will companies involved in this seek to dismantle health and social care in order to maximise profits?
How would that work then?
-
Evidence? No, thought not.
And have you any evidence to the contrary?
-
And have you any evidence to the contrary?
Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
How would that work then?
Any way they could make it work. There are probably accountants working out the balance between care and assisted death in order to maximise profits.
If for example you could be despatched because you were miserable, companies would promote misery and despondency.
-
Any way they could make it work. There are probably accountants working out the balance between care and assisted death in order to maximise profits.
If for example you could be despatched because you were miserable, companies would promote misery and despondency.
Are there really? As SteveH said to Littleroses 'Evidence? No, thought not.'
-
companies would promote misery and despondency.
We've got a Tory government doing that already, so that avenue is already filled.
-
We've got a Tory government doing that already,
Privatisation.
-
Your claim, your burden of proof.
A number of 'born again ' Christians I have known in my life have fought hard against the odds to stay alive, when they were terminally ill and in terrible pain. Surely if they thought they were going to the paradise they believed heaven to be, they wouldn't put up such a fight to stay down here?
-
Are there really? As SteveH said to Littleroses 'Evidence? No, thought not.'
I think you are naïve not to believe that people will be eyeing this up as a potential financial opportunity...or do you expect taxpayers who are not in agreement with it to foot the bill as part of the overall tax take?
-
I think you are naïve not to believe that people will be eyeing this up as a potential financial opportunity...or do you expect taxpayers who are not in agreement with it to foot the bill as part of the overall tax take?
So that would be a no to the evidence then.
-
A number of 'born again ' Christians I have known in my life have fought hard against the odds to stay alive, when they were terminally ill and in terrible pain. Surely if they thought they were going to the paradise they believed heaven to be, they wouldn't put up such a fight to stay down here?
Survival is built in. It's hard to fight against. Just like one's ration of intelligence or looks LR.
-
So that would be a no to the evidence then.
I'm happy to let it pass as an opinion Sane.
-
I'm happy to let it pass as an opinion Sane.
If you wanted to make profits, wouldn't it be better to have people suffering for a longer time in incredible pain and humiliation and taking 'care' of them and selling lots of expensive drugs?
-
If you wanted to make profits, wouldn't it be better to have people suffering for a longer time in incredible pain and humiliation and taking 'care' of them and selling lots of expensive drugs?
Yes that is a danger I cover in my opening post.
-
Yes that is a danger I cover in my opening post.
No, you don't, your post talks about assisted dying,not the maintaining of the current status where you pay your tax to keep people suffering in pain they don't want.
-
No, you don't, your post talks about assisted dying,not the maintaining of the current status where you pay your tax to keep people suffering in pain they don't want.
So you would pay tax to have people ''cough cough'' then and have everybody paying for it?
I'm afraid if you are pro assisted dying you cannot avoid these questions Sane.
What type of people are you going to attract?
What happens to those who refuse?
Are firms going to take measures to maximise their business?
Are relatives going to force people to do it?
Is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?
Are miserable people going to be allowed it?
-
So you would pay tax to have people ''rubbed out'' then and have everybody paying for it?
I'm afraid if you are pro assisted dying you cannot avoid these questions Sane.
What type of people are you going to attract?
What happens to those who refuse?
Are firms going to take measures to maximise their business?
Are relatives going to force people to do it?
Is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?
Are miserable people going to be allowed it?
I see you avoided the issue there so I might choose to follow your lead,but I won't because I think the issue needs serious discussion not simplistic grandstanding. Though I have to note your questions are mostly unclear.
'So you would pay tax to have people ''rubbed out'' then and have everybody paying for it?' Yes, just as I pay tax for abortions to be carried out on the NHS. It's the right of the individuals here that I want to support and I would hate it if someone was told, you can only make that choice if you have money.
'What type of people are you going to attract?'
To what?
' What happens to those who refuse?'
Refuse what?
'Are firms going to take measures to maximise their business?'
Possibly but you will have to lay out what that means n this context.
'Are relatives going to force people to do it?'
Any legislation would aim to ensure this doesn't happen But in the current situation you, non relative, are forcing people to endure pain and humiliation
'is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?'
Again any legislation must aim to avoid this
'Are miserable people going to be allowed it?' My take is no, it's about medically defined conditions that are about physical as well as mental pain and suffering.
I don't think there is an easy simple moral answer here, and where you have been clear, you have raised valid issues. But there is no side on this that will have clean hands. If you want a proper discussion, I am all for it but if you just want indulge in some game playing about anyone who thinks assisted dying is acceptable in certain circumstance is a mobster who wants to kill I'll! People to get at the money under the mattress,then I will pass.
-
'What type of people are you going to attract?'
To what?
To the job of terminating people
' What happens to those who refuse?'
Refuse what?
refuse to terminate people. You are proposing that this is done on the NHS aren't you?
'Are firms going to take measures to maximise their business?'
Possibly but you will have to lay out what that means n this context.
How does any business maximise profit
By promoting itself, by being competitive and by lobbying government for a favourable environment for it's own business
'Are relatives going to force people to do it?'
Any legislation would aim to ensure this doesn't happen But in the current situation you, non relative, are forcing people to endure pain and humiliation
Pain is a problem but it comes down to allowing pain and killing. Not sure by what you mean by humiliation. Who is being humiliated?
'is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?'
Again any legislation must aim to avoid this
'Are miserable people going to be allowed it?' My take is no, it's about medically defined conditions that are about physical as well as mental pain and suffering.
I don't think there is an easy simple moral answer here, and where you have been clear, you have raised valid issues. But there is no side on this that will have clean hands. If you want a proper discussion, I am all for it but if you just want indulge in some game playing about anyone who thinks assisted dying is acceptable in certain circumstance is a mobster who wants to kill I'll! People to get at the money under the mattress,then I will pass.
[/quote]
I am not game playing at all.
I just have a different view from yours. Something you should perhaps learn to accept?
-
To the job of terminating people
' refuse to terminate people. You are proposing that this is done on the NHS aren't you?
How does any business maximise profit
By promoting itself, by being competitive and by lobbying government for a favourable environment for it's own business
Pain is a problem but it comes down to allowing pain and killing. Not sure by what you mean by humiliation. Who is being humiliated?
'is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?'
Again any legislation must aim to avoid this
'Are miserable people going to be allowed it?' My take is no, it's about medically defined conditions that are about physical as well as mental pain and suffering.
I don't think there is an easy simple moral answer here, and where you have been clear, you have raised valid issues. But there is no side on this that will have clean hands. If you want a proper discussion, I am all for it but if you just want indulge in some game playing about anyone who thinks assisted dying is acceptable in certain circumstance is a mobster who wants to kill I'll! People to get at the money under the mattress,then I will pass.
I am not game playing at all.
I just have a different view from yours. Something you should perhaps learn to accept?
Which is something that my post made quite clear I do. So given you continued with the gameplaying, and then lied about my position, then I will leave you to whatever you hope to achieve here.
-
Evidence? No, thought not.
I also wondered about that. Indeed if people who are 'believers' accept they have a terminal illness, they will accept it but it's normal and human to want to make the most of life and to prolong it because it's what we know. Also life is to be celebrated and enjoyed as well as used to best of our abilities. I love life & hope it will continue for a while; if it becomes obvious it won't I will accept the inevitable. If we didn't feel that way we might as well die as soon as born and who wants that? It's such an interesting world.
-
And have you any evidence to the contrary?
You made the assertion - it's up to you to provide evidence. Nevertheless, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/facing-death-how-religion_b_6701596.html (Not that that proves anything about the truth or otherwise of religious belief, of course.)
-
The last time this came up wasn't it something like 82% were for some form of assisted dying?
I don't know but I doubt the figures have altered very much?
Regards ippy
-
The last time this came up wasn't it something like 82% were for some form of assisted dying?
I don't know but I doubt the figures have altered very much?
Regards ippy
Big shout out to the argumentum ad populum!
-
Big shout out to the argumentum ad populum!
Bingo!
Actually didn't see an argument in Ippy's post just stated a fact.
A fallacy of a fallacy. :)
-
Bingo!
Actually didn't see an argument in Ippy's post just stated a fact.
A fallacy of a fallacy. :)
Am I being told that the percentage of those here in the U K are for some sort of assisted dying that I have posted was wrong?
If there's some form of assisted dying put to the vote in parliament, I'm sure that this is how happens, a vote is taken so unless I'm mistaken the decision is taken based on which side of the argument has the majority of votes?
Regards ippy
-
Bingo!
Actually didn't see an argument in Ippy's post just stated a fact.
A fallacy of a fallacy. :)
You might be right but then not sure what the point being made is.
-
Am I being told that the percentage of those here in the U K are for some sort of assisted dying that I have posted was wrong?
If there's some form of assisted dying put to the vote in parliament, I'm sure that this is how happens, a vote is taken so unless I'm mistaken the decision is taken based on which side of the argument has the majority of votes?
Regards ippy
No, that isn't the ad populum, see link below. The question is what relevance you think the figure has to whether that makes it a correct decision.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
-
Big shout out to the argumentum ad populum!
No, because it's a matter of public policy, not of objective fact.
-
No, because it's a matter of public policy, not of objective fact.
Doesn't need to be if the argument is that something is right because of the numbers supporting it.
-
Doesn't need to be if the argument is that something is right because of the numbers supporting it.
But he didn't actually say that it was right; he just quoted the figures.
-
But he didn't actually say that it was right; he just quoted the figures.
In which case as already covered in reply to jakswan, I fail to see the point. It might be that he isn't using it this way but it's a valid reading so we await ippy to explain.
-
So you would pay tax to have people ''cough cough'' then and have everybody paying for it?
I'm afraid if you are pro assisted dying you cannot avoid these questions Sane.
What type of people are you going to attract?
What happens to those who refuse?
Are firms going to take measures to maximise their business?
Are relatives going to force people to do it?
Is being a burden on people going to hustle people into doing it?
Are miserable people going to be allowed it?
It seems to work in Oregon, where assisted dying has been enshrined in law since 1997.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/international-examples/assisted-dying-oregon/
-
In which case as already covered in reply to jakswan, I fail to see the point. It might be that he isn't using it this way but it's a valid reading so we await ippy to explain.
I sometimes wonder about you N S, I've seen you having similar trouble with other posters on the forum I can't remember who or when it's not important enough, I and I think most of us on the forum don't seem to need such a degree of accuracy applied to every other word or sentence as it seems you do, I'm not about to meet you half way, so if you don't like the way I present myself there are alternatives.
I wish you well N S, but can't be arsed with things that are petty to me, please try to find someone else that might be bothering you.
Regards ippy
-
I sometimes wonder about you N S, I've seen you having similar trouble with other posters on the forum I can't remember who or when it's not important enough, I and I think most of us on the forum don't seem to need such a degree of accuracy applied to every other word or sentence as it seems you do, I'm not about to meet you half way, so if you don't like the way I present myself there are alternatives.
I wish you well N S, but can't be arsed with things that are petty to me, please try to find someone else that might be bothering you.
Regards ippy
You take more words to refuse to clarify something than anyone else I have ever seen.
-
Yet he's right, NS. You're not the only one, there is at least one other who does the same. In the end there's so much wrangling over phrasing, the original topic is obscured. There are threads on this forum that have gone on endlessly getting nowhere just because of that. What's more you don't let go. Anyone would think you expressed yourself perfectly at all times - no-one does.
I understood Ippy's meaning & imagine others did too.
-
Yet he's right, NS. You're not the only one, there is at least one other who does the same. In the end there's so much wrangling over phrasing, the original topic is obscured. There are threads on this forum that have gone on endlessly getting nowhere just because of that. What's more you don't let go. Anyone would think you expressed yourself perfectly at all times - no-one does.
I understood Ippy's meaning & imagine others did too.
Have I said that I express myself perfectly at all times? Since you know what ippy means - do you want to say what that is, given he isn't interested in doing so?
-
You might be right but then not sure what the point being made is.
I read it as an observation. Do you talk like this in life....
Person: would you like a drink green tea is popular?
You: fallacy
Person: what
You: explain why it's a fallacy
Person: asleep
-
I read it as an observation. Do you talk like this in life....
Person: would you like a drink green tea is popular?
You: fallacy
Person: what
You: explain why it's a fallacy
Person: asleep
Diddums
-
I believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide (they're not the same thing) for people who ask for it while compos mentis, and who are dying anyway, but if it was me, I'd prefer it to be administered while I was in bed, bot on a table.
-
I believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide (they're not the same thing) for people who ask for it while compos mentis, and who are dying anyway, but if it was me, I'd prefer it to be administered while I was in bed, bot on a table.
I'm all for personal choice such as the Oregon example, I've not heard anything particularly negative about it, no doubt they get the odd few religious nuts complaining about it but even then I've not heard of anything from the religious side directed toward the Oregon model.
When I refer to the Oregon example I'm meaning when practised in the whole of the way it is written into the Oregon's statutes of law, (For those with limited comprehension skills).
Regards ippy
-
I find it odd that people who believe they are going to heaven, are often the ones who are desperate to stay down here as long as possible.
That's not entirely fair. They are desperate for everybody else to stay down here (or perhaps up here) as long as possible. They want to impose their own values and beliefs on everybody else, for no good reason.
-
Am I being told that the percentage of those here in the U K are for some sort of assisted dying that I have posted was wrong?
The point is that just because 82% of people are in favour of assisted dying doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Personally, I am in favour of the idea. If I want to die because my quality of life is very poor, who are you to try to stop me? If I want to die and somebody else is prepared to help me, why should they be prosecuted for murder?
However, I think there need to be very strong safeguards and by that I mean judicial safeguards. I think assisted dying should be allowed only if the person who wants to die has sworn to it under oath in a judicial setting e.g. in front of a judge.
-
The point is that just because 82% of people are in favour of assisted dying doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Personally, I am in favour of the idea. If I want to die because my quality of life is very poor, who are you to try to stop me? If I want to die and somebody else is prepared to help me, why should they be prosecuted for murder?
However, I think there need to be very strong safeguards and by that I mean judicial safeguards. I think assisted dying should be allowed only if the person who wants to die has sworn to it under oath in a judicial setting e.g. in front of a judge.
Would legal aid be available? Because if not, many of those in the direst need won’t be able to access the service.
-
The point is that just because 82% of people are in favour of assisted dying doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Personally, I am in favour of the idea. If I want to die because my quality of life is very poor, who are you to try to stop me? If I want to die and somebody else is prepared to help me, why should they be prosecuted for murder?
However, I think there need to be very strong safeguards and by that I mean judicial safeguards. I think assisted dying should be allowed only if the person who wants to die has sworn to it under oath in a judicial setting e.g. in front of a judge.
J P,you say: 'The point is that just because 82% of people are in favour of assisted dying doesn't mean it is a good idea'.
This post of yours seems to be directed at me as though I was saying something more than stating a well known fact about the percentages in favour of assisted dying here in the U K?
Regards ippy
-
Would legal aid be available?
Absolutely.
Because if not, many of those in the direst need won’t be able to access the service.
Here is the tricky thing. The service would probably be self financing.
I know that, if I were to be in the position of wanting to end my life it would be because of circumstances in which the future would involve lots of medical treatment and care all of which would be expensive. This is why the checks and safeguards have to be judicial in nature, because the government might be all for it on the grounds of NHS savings.
-
This post of yours seems to be directed at me as though I was saying something more than stating a well known fact
Regards ippy
Well your post could be read as an attempt to argue that assisted dying should be allowed because most people are in favour of it.
You can protest that you didn't mean it that way, but it looks like Nearly Sane also came up with that interpretation.
-
Well your post could be read as an attempt to argue that assisted dying should be allowed because most people are in favour of it.
You can protest that you didn't mean it that way, but it looks like Nearly Sane also came up with that interpretation.
I'm sure you or anyone else could read whatever they like into any post I put up on the forum, but those particular figures presented to all of us about the subject of assisted dying by most of the media far outweigh the any of those of us with a conflicting view and since these figures were collected from people living in, a supposedly free western country, these figures can be taken as as fair appraisal of the general public view on the subject.
Had the consensus shown a small divide in the figures presented I could have understood the sentiments conveyed in your post, but with the percentages where they actually were at 82%, I admit crudely, it could be presented as a no brainer, however or for whatever reason anyone chose to present the 82% figure.
Regards ippy
-
I'm sure you or anyone else could read whatever they like into any post I put up on the forum, but those particular figures presented to all of us about the subject of assisted dying by most of the media far outweigh the any of those of us with a conflicting view and since these figures were collected from people living in, a supposedly free western country, these figures can be taken as as fair appraisal of the general public view on the subject.
Had the consensus shown a small divide in the figures presented I could have understood the sentiments conveyed in your post, but with the percentages where they actually were at 82%, I admit crudely, it could be presented as a no brainer, however or for whatever reason anyone chose to present the 82% figure.
Regards ippy
i really don't see what your point is. Nobody else has argued for or against assisted dying on the basis of the number of people who want it.
-
i really don't see what your point is. Nobody else has argued for or against assisted dying on the basis of the number of people who want it.
I get it, your N S using j p's handle.
Regards ippy
-
To the job of terminating people
My view is that hopefully that job will be done by doctors who are regulated and have some code of ethics. There are doctors who offer that service in other countries because they believe in people having a right to choose but I don't think a doctor should be forced to do it if is against their beliefs. Of course that could be problematic because a service to the public sometimes seems to involve carrying out government beliefs rather than your own so I am not sure what safeguards there would be for people who have a moral problem with killing a patient that wants to die.
How does any business maximise profit
By promoting itself, by being competitive and by lobbying government for a favourable environment for it's own business
Yes I can see the danger of culture and advertising influencing people's moral beliefs. They are currently influenced to prolong life despite the patient having expressed that they would not want to live with what they feel would be an unacceptably poor quality of life. So it is entirely possible that people could be influenced to not prolong life. I think people should be able to exercise their choice and leave instructions after discussions with doctors who can explain what to expect in clinical terms in various scenarios. Discussions may allow doctors to ascertain if the person is being pressured by relatives in their choice.
Pain is a problem but it comes down to allowing pain and killing. Not sure by what you mean by humiliation. Who is being humiliated?
When you are incapacitated, taking care of your daily needs and not being able to function independently can feel like you are losing your dignity and feel humiliating for some people.
Also, lack of funding and number of patients means there are delays before nurses can administer pain relief to people in pain - some people may choose to check out now rather than prolong their suffering and loss of autonomy.