Politics Assisted Dying?

[Embattle]

I'm just wondering what is everyone current thoughts on the Assisted Dying Bill due to be debated, a considerable amount of faith leaders have come out against it including Justin Welby-
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...icide-bill-justin-welby-archbishop-canterbury

 

[ECA]

I stopped reading when you wrote faith healers.

 

[chipper]

yes i do support it if we are allowed to put down our pets due to terminal or zero quality of life and they dont actually have a voice. surely a sentient being with the capability of thought can make a decision if they decide they no longer wish to live. its their life why the fuck should they not decided when its over??

 

[Embattle]

I stopped reading when you wrote faith healers.

Whoops that was suppose to be leaders, reported it asking for someone to change it.

 

[Yoni]

That's a bloody big question @Embattle.... Personally I see pros and cons to it.... I would like to know that if I am truly terminal and my quality of life sucks, that I could die peacefully and in a controlled way... However my concerns lie with the potential ease at which the system could be manipulated.

 

[Embattle]

That's a bloody big question @Embattle.... Personally I see pros and cons to it.... I would like to know that if I am truly terminal and my quality of life sucks, that I could die peacefully and in a controlled way... However my concerns lie with the potential ease at which the system could be manipulated.

Some information on safeguards in the bill - http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/safeguards/

 

[Raven]

I think anyone should have the right to end their life, regardless of the time or reason, it is the ultimate freedom.

However, the system should be 100% sure that the person made the decision on their own without any external influence, which I am not sure is possible.

It should be handled on a case by case basis.

 

[soze]

I agree with it but it should be something you put into your own Medical Records in advance. Your family should not be able to do it for you. But if you are given the prognosis of a horrible illness you should be able to go out on your own terms. In the same way you should be able to put in your medical files that you do not want to live as a vegetable if you are involved in an accident ect.

 

[Scouse]

Personally I see pros and cons to it....

I do too. I think it's awful that it is illegal for individuals to help others die peacefully when they're in pain and agony and am hugely sympathetic to their plight.

However, I think if we legislate for this, cross this ethical rubicon so to speak, there's nothing for us to legislate for "other reasons" people could seek early death for further down the line (regardless of any promised "legal safeguards" (for what is legal is subject to continuous change).

I can quite easily see, once this became ethically "normal" rather than a contentious issue then there'll be another contentious issue about assisted dying that comes to the fore that would cause way too much moral outrage to be instituted today.

It's the proverbial slippery slope and it happens every single time we cross such a line - and will happen this time.

That's the bulk of my argument against it. I think we shouldn't be legislating. I think, whilst terrible, people should be risking it if they're helping people to die - it's almost the ultimate litmus test of whether the course of action is the correct one. I think their sacrifice will stop unspeakable horrors occuring in the future and whilst tragic then maybe it's a price we need to pay.

There are a number of other powerful arguments - much more immediately practical and demonstrable - but the above is the one that I think about most.

So sorry, Mr Terry Pratchett, I can't agree with you.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - I used to be all for it. But not any more.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think we all know the answer

 

[Embattle]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185895/

 

[TdC]

I think we all know the answer

I was sooooo looking for that, but stuck on Woody Allen's Orgasmatron booth :-/

 

[Scouse]

@Embattle - You've used an article against my position that a slippery slope will inevitably occur by a guy who A) openly admits a slippery slope will occur, B) demonstrates its occurance in other countries where euthanasia has been legalised and, C) openly professes his objective of widening the scope of euthanasia by continued legislation and chipping away at what we feel is morally reprehensible.

As far as I'm concerned you've made my argument for me. Thankyou very much


Why don't we just kill all downs and be done with it eh? May be morally reprehensible now, but in the future...

 

[DaGaffer]

@Embattle - You've used an article against my position that a slippery slope will inevitably occur by a guy who A) openly admits a slippery slope will occur, B) demonstrates its occurance in other countries where euthanasia has been legalised and, C) openly professes his objective of widening the scope of euthanasia by continued legislation and chipping away at what we feel is morally reprehensible.

As far as I'm concerned you've made my argument for me. Thankyou very much


Why don't we just kill all downs and be done with it eh? May be morally reprehensible now, but in the future...

He didn't say that at all; he just pointed out the slope isn't "slippery" at all; but it does exist. I don't really have a problem with that tbh. Whereas you've gone in to full straw man attack mode straight away.

 

[Trem]

I wanted to kill my dad as he was lying there dying, I wanted to sneak around and boost up the morphine he was having, I wanted it over with. Up until those 2 days (and bearing in mind we all knew he was going to die because of his liver) he was full of life and happy and would not of chosen to die. He always said "knowing my fucking luck I'll do it and the next day they'll find a cure".

It isn't the same thing I know, if he chose to do it he would of done it himself in his flat, more than likely with a big fuck off gun (don't ask).

If the person is wanting this and has their marbles then why not, but there are painless ways of doing it yourself I guess, obviously for those paralised it isn't that easy but for those who know the end is nigh........

 

[Scouse]

He didn't say that at all; he just pointed out the slope isn't "slippery" at all; but it does exist. I don't really have a problem with that tbh. Whereas you've gone in to full straw man attack mode straight away.

I disagree. I think the example quoted proves an existing mechnism exists and actually happens.

The law as proposed will be subject to modifications that if people were informed about up-front then they'd probably retreat from - and the law wouldn't be passed. This is why the good doctor is a proponent of step-by-step chipping away at what we find morally repugnant. I.E. He's an actual proponent of the slippery slope method.

It's not a big strech to bring up the Downs point I made. There's precedent for it in recent actual history and I cannot see any argument that would make for foolproof security against it. A euthanasia law would bring us closer to that eventuality. I'm not saying it would make it a bang-on definite thing - but it certainly would make a future case easier to make. And if not downs, then something else.

Which is primarily why (amongst a lot of other reasons), with great regret, I couldn't support such a law. Despite preivously being for it. I think that now I'm older I've seen other stuff I've previously been all for taken further than I'd have imagined at the time. Mostly around civil liberties. And all the people who were dismissed as doomsayers, tin-foil hatters etc (by people like me) have turned out right. I think, eventually, this could turn out the same way. It may not, but given the way population demographics are going, the way budgets are being squeezed etc. etc. etc. I think it's too big a risk.

There'll always be suffering. We'll always want to alleviate it. That's right and good and admirable of us as a species. But there's a bigger picture IMO.



Edit: And yes, before anyone makes the point, like Trem, I've unfortunately seen close family members die in pain and it's horrendous

 

[Trem]

There'll always be suffering. We'll always want to alleviate it. That's right and good and admirable of us as a species. But there's a bigger picture IMO.

Nothing else to add from my point of view apart from the above.

 

[soze]

That is why I think it needs to be your choice and your choice alone. If you do not tick the box for assisted suicide or add it to your medical records in what ever way while you are of sound mind and body then tough shit it is too late.

Your family should never be able to bump you off if it was not your wish. But I do think it should be your choice if you decided now that you would rather not live as a vegetable being fed through a tube for the rest of your life that should be respected.

 

[Scouse]

But I do think it should be your choice if you decided now that you would rather not live as a vegetable being fed through a tube for the rest of your life that should be respected.

Decisions get made every day about turning off feeding tubes for people in vegetative states. Happens all the time - we're quite happy to let these people die. The cases we hear about tend to be where the family insist that doctors don't turn the food off.

You can go to your doctors now and express your wish that if you're in a vegatative state that you want to be let die. There's no problem with that.

 

[Yoni]

My dad a staunch Catholic totally against assisted suicide, until the point where after his stroke couldn't do anything for himself and on top of that had random fits.... Poor old boy couldn't even go for a shit without my mum interrupting him many times to make sure he wasn't unconcious.... During this time before his death he begged my sisters to take him to Geneva.... After seeing my dad for the last time a few weeks before he died I would have willingly helped him if he had asked him after having him sob into my shoulders (once after fitting and the second as i got in the car to go to the airport). He was in no physical pain but the mental anguish he was going through was just dreadful...

 

[Job]

The one area for me where the church for all it's bullshit, has a say.
Assisted dying is the mother of all slippery slopes and basically leads to Logans Run (youngies google that nice titties as well). The issue has to transcend logic because death it outside of science and our reasons to want to live cannot be quantified outside of evolution. Assisted dying is handy today for people suffering and by extension be compulsory tomorrow, It should always be an epic undertaking, bringing into law will end up with Futurama suicide booths and two for one deals. Anyone who looks at Sweden's experience has to realise the Swede's are a different people, us Brit's would make it a TV show.

 

[Moriath]

When you say swedes you mean swiss?

Im sure it would have helped my dad not to suffer the last couple of bed bound blind and i continent weeks of his life.

Your life belongs to you and you should be able to end it if you want to. This sanctity of life is bullshit. Why should you be told you have to suffer?

Obviously safe guards need to be put into place. And will probably only apply to those with a terminal illness. But why should anyone tell you how you should die? Just like they should tell you how to live.

 

[Gwadien]

Frankly, I'd go one step further and say you can make the decision FOR people, so long as they've checked your background - I'm sure it must be awful to be on your deathbed and then discussing dying earlier.

I'm sure it would be much more peaceful if a nurse injected you with something as you were asleep and you had no idea about it.

Issue is - that this will be NHS, and it'll cost a billion.

 

[Job]

Sorry yes , Swiss, there you go..Gwadien has allready ramped it up to killing people in their sleep for them.
Terminally ill....in terrible pain...old and getting in the way...people we don't like.

 

[Moriath]

Frankly, I'd go one step further and say you can make the decision FOR people, so long as they've checked your background - I'm sure it must be awful to be on your deathbed and then discussing dying earlier.

I'm sure it would be much more peaceful if a nurse injected you with something as you were asleep and you had no idea about it.

Issue is - that this will be NHS, and it'll cost a billion.

No. Never others taking the choice for you.

You could set up a living will. That gave circumstances when you would like your life ended if you cannot make that choice. But it should always err on the side of keeping the patient alive until natural death takes place.

 

[Trem]

Frankly, I'd go one step further and say you can make the decision FOR people, so long as they've checked your background - I'm sure it must be awful to be on your deathbed and then discussing dying earlier.

I'm sure it would be much more peaceful if a nurse injected you with something as you were asleep and you had no idea about it.

Issue is - that this will be NHS, and it'll cost a billion.

Oh god almighty no, just no.

So many times I wished my mum would just die, because it hurts *me* so much to see her how she is, she has nothing, she knows nothing and it would make no difference if she was (for want of a better phrase) put to sleep. But that is not moral and then I live with that and then everyone knows what I have done, then I end up in the same nut house. Then, like my dad said "knowing my fucking luck they will find a cure for it the next day".

 

[mooSe_]

It's really easy to assert that there will be a slippery slope, but it's rarely a very convincing argument. A carefully constructed law with safeguards allowing people to make the decision to end their own lives in specific circumstances won't necessarily lead to 'suicide booths'.

The main difficulty is making sure that the safeguards are actually effective at preventing vulnerable people from being abused. Making sure people's families can't end their life without their specific informed consent, and making sure that old people don't feel like they need to end their lives because they feel like a burden on their family are the real problems imo.

 

[Scouse]

It's really easy to assert that there will be a slippery slope, but it's rarely a very convincing argument.

I disagree totally.

Where it's already been implemented the net has already been widened - the slope has already been proven very slippery. Read that thing Embattle posted - he's talking about killing people who cannot give their consent. His raison d'etre is the slippery slope method.

At first, euthanasia was permitted only for the terminally ill who requested it, but then it was permitted for the chronically ill, for those whose suffering was psychological, and for incompetent patients, including children.....

....If we cannot effect that legal change in one step, we recommend, in the first instance, a more limited liberalization of the law. Once that change has been made, people might realize that the next step and then the next are also acceptable, even if they cannot see it now.

Slippery slope in action.

I'm sorry. People suffer. It's shit. But tough.

 

[Embattle]

Ironic some people seem to talk about the next step being someone deciding another persons fate at the same time as doing it themselves in the first phase.