The slippery slope is surely that once one class of sufferers is afforded the right to die where does this end ? All it takes is one court case, as will inevitably happen, and before you know it people will have the right to kill themselves for basically anything as long as they can prove a low quality of life. This could mean anything, but mainly depression. This is a condition which has already been said further up the thread should be excluded from these provisions, but who’s call is this ? Surely quality of life is how it is perceived from the individual, not how his quality of life is perceived by ShootersHillGuru, Henry Irving or anyone else and it’s only a matter of time before this leads to basically anyone being able to claim to be allowed to end their life.
The other problem, as I see it, is that the NHS is open to anyone in the UK. Not just residents etc. therefore, as oppose to Switzerland where you go and pay, euthanasia would be open to anyone who could get here.
Re the religious thing, as I said, it isn’t appropriate to bring religion into what is a debate of law (which should always remain secular) but I was just saying that many will hold these beliefs and they should be acknowledged but not persuasive.
Interesting debate and I completely see both sides, this is mine.
Good points SE9 and your view is valid IMHO. This is meant to be a moral maze so no easy answers.
But, getting back to the slippery slope point, should people who are terminally ill be denied because the law might later be changed. In that case actual sufferers are not being allowed to die to protect theoretical people in the future.
And would not most people with depression be able to commit suicide without assistance? Suicide is already legal.
Thing is se9. If you want to take your life you can. There has always been suicide as an option for you, me or Henry. Assisted suicide is something else. Denial of assisted suicide has already been challenged in the courts and lost. Eventually I suspect it will come. At present it is the priviledge of those wealthy few who can afford to get to a private clinic in Lucerne or wherever. You can of course beg a relative or friend to do the kind thing for you and risk prosecution or if you are
fit and able enough jump under a train.
“Thing is se9. If you want to take your life you can” – not legally – I thought that was the debate ?
“There has always been suicide as an option for you, me or Henry” – as above
“Eventually I suspect it will come” – so do I, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it
“At present it is the priviledge of those wealthy few” – and soon it will be the privilege of anyone who makes it into the UK to take advantage of our universal euthanasia policy
“if you are fit and able enough jump under a train” – I would argue that these people who are fit and healthy enough to do so should not really be afforded euthanasia in the first place
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]“Thing is se9. If you want to take your life you can” – not legally – I thought that was the debate ?
Sorry, maybe I've misunderstood but suicide has been legal since 1961. Assisted suicide ie one person aiding another person, who wishes to do so, to die is still illegal
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Anti libertarians like you are always very happy to decide what rights people should have or not have.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Anti libertarians like you are always very happy to decide what rights people should have or not have.
Are you not doing the exact same thing, by saying a sufferer of depression does have those very same rightslegally
I think my argument is based around people who have a terminal illness with little quality of life that is confirmed as deteriorating. Everyone else should be considered as treatable. If of course they decide that life is no longer desirable then I of course respect their right to end it however they see fit but not by assisted suicide. My previous comment you highlight was ill thought out.
"suicide has been legal since 1961" - sorry, that's my ignorance, I didn't know that. So if I was trying to kill myself, inside my house, the police would just let me get on with it (if they knew what I was up to) ?
"Are you not doing the exact same thing, by saying a sufferer of depression does have those very same rights legally" - that's what I mean, who decides ? Where is the line drawn ? It will just end up that anyone who can satisfy the doctor that their quality of life is below some criteria then they can have the right to assisted suicide.
I just see so many reasons (most of which I have stated) against it that in comparrison to the small number of people it will really benefit I don't think it should be made law.
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]"suicide has been legal since 1961" - sorry, that's my ignorance, I didn't know that. So if I was trying to kill myself, inside my house, the police would just let me get on with it (if they knew what I was up to) ?
I guess they would try to talk you out of it but if you failed you could not be prosecuted for attempted suicide as it is no longer a crime.
If I handed you a syringe or obtained the drugs for you to swallow yourself while you would not be committing any crime but I would and could go to prison for up to 14 years. In practice it seems rare that prison sentences are handed down but the threat of them may deter some people from helping loved ones.
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]
"Are you not doing the exact same thing, by saying a sufferer of depression does have those very same rights legally" - that's what I mean, who decides ? Where is the line drawn ? It will just end up that anyone who can satisfy the doctor that their quality of life is below some criteria then they can have the right to assisted suicide.
That's a very good point. Who draws the line? Is it up to the state, via the law and the medical profession to decide or should it be totally down to the individual?
Laws impinge on our individual freedoms in lots of ways. Why should the government require by law that I wear a crash helmet for example ? If I fall of a motorbike without one its only me that suffers. There has to be strict rules for assisted suicide imho but all of the arguments above even the ones I disagree with are valid. Good debate.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Laws impinge on our individual freedoms in lots of ways. Why should the government require by law that I wear a crash helmet for example ? If I fall of a motorbike without one its only me that suffers. There has to be strict rules for assisted suicide imho but all of the arguments above even the ones I disagree with are valid. Good debate.
We'd miss you if you fell off your bike without a helmet.
In my opinion the State should only assist in suicides under strict rules - the patient is suffering an incurably terminal ilness and is losing, or has lost his/her dignity. At which point the option of assisted suicide should be made available.
In some cases this is available in the UK - if a patient goes into an irreversible coma the next of kin can ask that the life support be switched off. I don't see why this shouldn't be extended into a living will situation whereby a patient can request that in the event of their falling into a coma with no realistic chance that they may wake up that the life support is switched off. Similarly the State should allow and assist in cases where a sufferer of terminal cancer who has no chance of a cure should be allowed to die peacefully, rather than have their life prolonged to the point where they are under 100% medical supervision and only painkillers are keeping them alive until the inevitable happens. That is treating the patient with respect and dignity. I wouldn't advocate it in cases of severe depression where there may be a cure.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]In my opinion the State should only assist in suicides under strict rules - the patient is suffering an incurably terminal ilness and is losing, or has lost his/her dignity. At which point the option of assisted suicide should be made available.
In some cases this is available in the UK - if a patient goes into an irreversible coma the next of kin can ask that the life support be switched off. I don't see why this shouldn't be extended into a living will situation whereby a patient can request that in the event of their falling into a coma with no realistic chance that they may wake up that the life support is switched off. Similarly the State should allow and assist in cases where a sufferer of terminal cancer who has no chance of a cure should be allowed to die peacefully, rather than have their life prolonged to the point where they are under 100% medical supervision and only painkillers are keeping them alive until the inevitable happens. That is treating the patient with respect and dignity. I wouldn't advocate it in cases of severe depression where there may be a cure.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Laws impinge on our individual freedoms in lots of ways. Why should the government require by law that I wear a crash helmet for example ? If I fall of a motorbike without one its only me that suffers. There has to be strict rules for assisted suicide imho but all of the arguments above even the ones I disagree with are valid. Good debate.
In such a case if you were to collide with a car and suffered even a minor fall then that could still be enough to either kill or maim you. In such cases think of the other party, who'd have your death/maiming on their conscience. Safety legislation is there to protect all parties, if the driver of the car was at fault then their insurance premiums would be higher as a result of the consequences of the accident being far worse than if you were adequately protected and that in turn helps us all.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Laws impinge on our individual freedoms in lots of ways. Why should the government require by law that I wear a crash helmet for example ? If I fall of a motorbike without one its only me that suffers. There has to be strict rules for assisted suicide imho but all of the arguments above even the ones I disagree with are valid. Good debate.
In such a case if you were to collide with a car and suffered even a minor fall then that could still be enough to either kill or maim you. In such cases think of the other party, who'd have your death/maiming on their conscience. Safety legislation is there to protect all parties, if the driver of the car was at fault then their insurance premiums would be higher as a result of the consequences of the accident being far worse than if you were adequately protected and that in turn helps us all.
Compulsory all over highly padded motorbike suits to protect car drivers insurance premiums ?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Laws impinge on our individual freedoms in lots of ways. Why should the government require by law that I wear a crash helmet for example ? If I fall of a motorbike without one its only me that suffers. There has to be strict rules for assisted suicide imho but all of the arguments above even the ones I disagree with are valid. Good debate.
Compulsory all over highly padded motorbike suits to protect car drivers insurance premiums ?
Nope, but the law does insist on several things - that the protection on your bonce meets current safety rules (BSA etc), that you pass a test that proves that you are competent enough to be let loose on the roads (otherwise you are resticted to a low power motor-bike) and that you are insured so that in event of a prang you can meet some if not all of your liabilities.
Should assisted suicide be made legal in the UK and supported on the NHS?
Discuss
This is something close to my heart...
Yes it should be for terminally ill or those who will not "live their life but exist within it"
For the depressed - NO in fact those that suffer depression should be given more help in accessing counselling so they feel they have someone there for them.
Personally I don't like the 'slippery slope' argument much - you can use that logic to deny just about any change in the law. Aside from people with particular religious convictions, we can probably all think of cases where assisted suicide is relatively non-controversial (e.g. the terminaly ill who are in great pain). The question is a more a practical than a moral one for me of whether you can frame a law to cover such cases that is not open to abuse. Don't know the answer to that.
With regards to NHS support, subject to the above I don't see why not except obviously no doctor should be obliged to kill someone, or provide the means for them to kill themselves.
Don't think you could include depression as a ground because the medical issues are too poorly understood. You can't have 'terminal depression' for example, although the Millwall result tonight could test that assumption.
Assisted suicide is a euphemism for murder and potentially a charter for eugenics. Furthermore If it is sponsored by the NHS then economic considerations will almost inevitably override the wishes and welfare of patients if they don't in fact already in many NHS Trusts. Stafffordshire being a recent example.
McLoving, whether intentionally or unintentionally, hit on the real agenda of many advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide when he suggested killing people once they reach the age of 80.
If this became law vulnerable old and disabled people would be pressurised to consent to being murdered sorry I meant assisted to commit suicide in order to avoid "being a burden" either financially on the State or on those who care for them.
They killed the elderly and disabled in Nazi Germany as well as the Jews and frankly it frightens me that so many on this thread appear to want to live in that kind of society. Why did we bother to fight World War 2?
I won't even mention Religion because it is evident that many have contempt for it on this forum. However one of the 10 Commandments is Thou shalt not kill and that says it all as far as I am concerned.
The CPS in this country are quite capable of finding reasons not to prosecute criminals when it suits them so if there are cases of "genuine" assisted suicide then perhaps they should use their discretion and not prosecute.
However assisted suicide and euthanasia should remain against the law in my opinion.
This is not the most coherent post I have ever placed on this forum but I feel strongly about this and as a result emotion is overriding eloquence and clarity.
One more point what is "quality of life" and who determines what it is?
Somebody with a condition like Downs Syndrome for example can enjoy life on their own level. What right does somebody else have to deprive such a person of life because THEY deem it of insufficent quality?
Comments
The other problem, as I see it, is that the NHS is open to anyone in the UK. Not just residents etc. therefore, as oppose to Switzerland where you go and pay, euthanasia would be open to anyone who could get here.
Re the religious thing, as I said, it isn’t appropriate to bring religion into what is a debate of law (which should always remain secular) but I was just saying that many will hold these beliefs and they should be acknowledged but not persuasive.
Interesting debate and I completely see both sides, this is mine.
But, getting back to the slippery slope point, should people who are terminally ill be denied because the law might later be changed. In that case actual sufferers are not being allowed to die to protect theoretical people in the future.
And would not most people with depression be able to commit suicide without assistance? Suicide is already legal.
fit and able enough jump under a train.
“There has always been suicide as an option for you, me or Henry” – as above
“Eventually I suspect it will come” – so do I, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it
“At present it is the priviledge of those wealthy few” – and soon it will be the privilege of anyone who makes it into the UK to take advantage of our universal euthanasia policy
“if you are fit and able enough jump under a train” – I would argue that these people who are fit and healthy enough to do so should not really be afforded euthanasia in the first place
Sorry, maybe I've misunderstood but suicide has been legal since 1961. Assisted suicide ie one person aiding another person, who wishes to do so, to die is still illegal
Keep it nice, guys.
Are you not doing the exact same thing, by saying a sufferer of depression does have those very same rights legally
I think my argument is based around people who have a terminal illness with little quality of life that is confirmed as deteriorating. Everyone else should be considered as treatable. If of course they decide that life is no longer desirable then I of course respect their right to end it however they see fit but not by assisted suicide. My previous comment you highlight was ill thought out.
"Are you not doing the exact same thing, by saying a sufferer of depression does have those very same rights legally" - that's what I mean, who decides ? Where is the line drawn ? It will just end up that anyone who can satisfy the doctor that their quality of life is below some criteria then they can have the right to assisted suicide.
I just see so many reasons (most of which I have stated) against it that in comparrison to the small number of people it will really benefit I don't think it should be made law.
I guess they would try to talk you out of it but if you failed you could not be prosecuted for attempted suicide as it is no longer a crime.
If I handed you a syringe or obtained the drugs for you to swallow yourself while you would not be committing any crime but I would and could go to prison for up to 14 years. In practice it seems rare that prison sentences are handed down but the threat of them may deter some people from helping loved ones.
That's a very good point. Who draws the line? Is it up to the state, via the law and the medical profession to decide or should it be totally down to the individual?
We'd miss you if you fell off your bike without a helmet.
Not for long, mind, but we would : - )
In some cases this is available in the UK - if a patient goes into an irreversible coma the next of kin can ask that the life support be switched off. I don't see why this shouldn't be extended into a living will situation whereby a patient can request that in the event of their falling into a coma with no realistic chance that they may wake up that the life support is switched off. Similarly the State should allow and assist in cases where a sufferer of terminal cancer who has no chance of a cure should be allowed to die peacefully, rather than have their life prolonged to the point where they are under 100% medical supervision and only painkillers are keeping them alive until the inevitable happens. That is treating the patient with respect and dignity. I wouldn't advocate it in cases of severe depression where there may be a cure.
Yeah
In such a case if you were to collide with a car and suffered even a minor fall then that could still be enough to either kill or maim you. In such cases think of the other party, who'd have your death/maiming on their conscience. Safety legislation is there to protect all parties, if the driver of the car was at fault then their insurance premiums would be higher as a result of the consequences of the accident being far worse than if you were adequately protected and that in turn helps us all.
Compulsory all over highly padded motorbike suits to protect car drivers insurance premiums ?
They're good those Japanese motors
lol
This is something close to my heart...
Yes it should be for terminally ill or those who will not "live their life but exist within it"
For the depressed - NO in fact those that suffer depression should be given more help in accessing counselling so they feel they have someone there for them.
With regards to NHS support, subject to the above I don't see why not except obviously no doctor should be obliged to kill someone, or provide the means for them to kill themselves.
Don't think you could include depression as a ground because the medical issues are too poorly understood. You can't have 'terminal depression' for example, although the Millwall result tonight could test that assumption.
McLoving, whether intentionally or unintentionally, hit on the real agenda of many advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide when he suggested killing people once they reach the age of 80.
If this became law vulnerable old and disabled people would be pressurised to consent to being murdered sorry I meant assisted to commit suicide in order to avoid "being a burden" either financially on the State or on those who care for them.
They killed the elderly and disabled in Nazi Germany as well as the Jews and frankly it frightens me that so many on this thread appear to want to live in that kind of society. Why did we bother to fight World War 2?
I won't even mention Religion because it is evident that many have contempt for it on this forum. However one of the 10 Commandments is Thou shalt not kill and that says it all as far as I am concerned.
The CPS in this country are quite capable of finding reasons not to prosecute criminals when it suits them so if there are cases of "genuine" assisted suicide then perhaps they should use their discretion and not prosecute.
However assisted suicide and euthanasia should remain against the law in my opinion.
This is not the most coherent post I have ever placed on this forum but I feel strongly about this and as a result emotion is overriding eloquence and clarity.
Somebody with a condition like Downs Syndrome for example can enjoy life on their own level. What right does somebody else have to deprive such a person of life because THEY deem it of insufficent quality?
My point relates to those who would just exist as a Vegetable please excuse the wording.