Assisted dying

stonerblue said:
Since when has it been aka 'legalised suicide'?
The negative connotations of the word paint a picture that is usually wrong regardiing those who are facing a bleak future through ill-health.
Click to expand...
Suicide has not been a crime for many years now but assisting suicide is still illegal, though the DPP has advised prosecutors not to press cases where the victim is terminally ill and there is evidence that they wished to die. Assisting, subject to safeguards, is what would be legalised, especially for doctors faced with the dilemma.
Frankly, the failure to provide the conditions for this is not civilised. After all, I had my ill cat put to sleep when he was suffering. Why can I not do this for a loved one?
 
metalblue said:
I get the romantic bravado of it all, it seems so simple and nobody wants to think of dying in pain or having to be fed like a baby but there a deeply practical, legal and moral issues at stake here.

You are asking a medical professional to administer a lethal dose whose oath is to neither hasten nor delay death. How can you possibly force them to do so just because it’s lawful to? You can’t so you won’t be pitching up at your local hospital and going through the process - you’ll be needing to travel to a specialist centre - assuming that you could staff it with enough people who are willing to do this.

Then there is a whole debate to be had around consent. You need to have all your faculties and be able to make an informed decision at time of administering it. Medical professionals cannot rely on a pre signed piece of paper to say you agree as you may have changed your mind and they can’t confirm or otherwise so they won’t do it. To overcome this you will be choosing to die whilst you still have a reasonable quality of life.

Once you make it possible for a medically fit person to be killed you open up all sorts of moral and legal issues.

It is certainly an important debate the country should have and be heard to have. I doubt many people have really thought it through and that’s before you get the religious nut jobs involved.
Click to expand...
Some doctors will decline and the law can make provision for this.
A living will can be executed while the subject is compos mentis in anticipation in cases such as MND.
I doubt that in cases of a medically fit person, the facility would be available, to safeguard against cases of temporary mental illness.
It is a matter of evidence being important.
 
As we are all religious - and aethism IS a religion - i feel the following points need to be brought out in this debate.
1. If a person feels THEIR existence is cruel and far too painful to go on then their wishes should be respected WITHOUT laying their nearest and dearest open to crimal charges for assisting their death.
2. As we all know PRESSURE will be put on some people to die by their supposed family or indeed by a supposed caring government.
3. Medics must be protected from having to agree to implement this law. Most become doctors to save life and under no circumstances should that precept be violated. NEITHER should a medical job offer OR terms and conditions be dependent on agreeing to implement assisted death

So long as point 1 can be met and points 2 and 3 defended against, then I can't see the problem myself in allowing assisted death.
But as we all know 2 needs a bullet proof legal process in place and we all know how difficult that is.
Point 3 also doesn't tend to work in the long term (see retail work on Sundays as an example) - it can't be modified in any future variation to the legislation or the hiprocratic oath they all took could be violated END OF. Individual doctors may thing that avoiding cruelty is part of the oath - most do not and feel life is a inviolate part of the oath. It won't become a local NHS service and that's for sure - not if you want an NHS anyway.
Point 2 means relatives of an individual, or indeed the government cannot decide what should happen. Only a living will can provide sufficient safeguards against unscrupulous relatives - I'm afraid "Power of attorney for health" doesn't cut it as the rules need to be set in stone.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
As we are all religious - and aethism IS a religion - i feel the following points need to be brought out in this debate.
1. If a person feels THEIR existence is cruel and far too painful to go on then their wishes should be respected WITHOUT laying their nearest and dearest open to crimal charges for assisting their death.
2. As we all know PRESSURE will be put on some people to die by their supposed family or indeed by a supposed caring government.
3. Medics must be protected from having to agree to implement this law. Most become doctors to save life and under no circumstances should that precept be violated. NEITHER should a medical job offer OR terms and conditions be dependent on agreeing to implement assisted death

So long as point 1 can be met and points 2 and 3 defended against, then I can't see the problem myself in allowing assisted death.
But as we all know 2 needs a bullet proof legal process in place and we all know how difficult that is.
Point 3 also doesn't tend to work in the long term (see retail work on Sundays as an example) - it can't be modified in any future variation to the legislation or the hiprocratic oath they all took could be violated END OF. Individual doctors may thing that avoiding cruelty is part of the oath - most do not and feel life is a inviolate part of the oath. It won't become a local NHS service and that's for sure - not if you want an NHS anyway.
Point 2 means relatives of an individual, or indeed the government cannot decide what should happen. Only a living will can provide sufficient safeguards against unscrupulous relatives - I'm afraid "Power of attorney for health" doesn't cut it as the rules need to be set in stone.
Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much all of your post, with the exception of the first ten words.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I agree with pretty much all of your post, with the exception of the first ten words.
Click to expand...
Each to their own, but...
Aethism is a belief system. in that respect It is no different than a religion. It's adherents claim that those who are not aethiests believe in sone sort of sky fairy.
Some aethiests believe those who are not aethiests are heretics, whereas some believe each to their own so long as they don't impose their belief on others or injure others in the process of following their belief.
Do try and prove me wrong if you want - but maybe that should be in a different thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.