Family & Relationships3 mins ago
Should Euthanasia Be Legalized In The Uk?
57 Answers
I am doing a philosophy project in my school and want to know what you think of the following statements.
Most people in this modern day society believe that euthanasia is a loving and compassionate action, as it aids people to end their life when they are suffering from fatal illness. Many agree with this because they feel it is better to die with dignity, and that we are all in control with our bodies and should be allowed do what we want with it. However the raising question is that what are the long term effects of legalizing euthanasia? Some believe that problems that could arise from this are devaling of life, a "slippery slope", people perscribing euthanaisa, people being pressurised into euthansia etc.
What do you think?
Most people in this modern day society believe that euthanasia is a loving and compassionate action, as it aids people to end their life when they are suffering from fatal illness. Many agree with this because they feel it is better to die with dignity, and that we are all in control with our bodies and should be allowed do what we want with it. However the raising question is that what are the long term effects of legalizing euthanasia? Some believe that problems that could arise from this are devaling of life, a "slippery slope", people perscribing euthanaisa, people being pressurised into euthansia etc.
What do you think?
Answers
It won't be easy to create a legal infrastructu
11:06 Fri 10th May 2013
Assisted suicide is virtually legalised already -- technically it is not, but in the last four years 68 cases of assisted suicide have been brought before the CPS, of which only 9 are (as of March 1st) still being considered, and just 1 of these 9 so far has led to a murder charge. the remaining 59 led to no charges at all.
http://
http://
It won't be easy to create a legal infrastructure to ensure that Euthanasia is not abused but it is only right that people have control over how their life will end.
We have our companion animals put to sleep when they are old and/or in pain with no hope of recovery. This is done out of love. I hope that Euthanasia for humans is not used as a way of getting rid of Auntie B who has loads of money.
We have our companion animals put to sleep when they are old and/or in pain with no hope of recovery. This is done out of love. I hope that Euthanasia for humans is not used as a way of getting rid of Auntie B who has loads of money.
The reason I think Euthanasia and Assisted suicide should not be legalised is precisely because the law as it stands is doing very well, thank you very much. Those who help loved ones to die actively or otherwise, with genuine motives, do not end up in jail or even in court under the current guidelines -- while those exceptional few who use "mercy killing" as a cloak to hide dangerous intentions are prosecuted. The balance, I think, is right at the moment.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of assisted suicide for a number of reasons: life is too valuable, death is too permanent, most people don't have a choice, social pressures may be dangerous, etc. At one level we are already seeing similar affects in abortion. A 2004 study in the US (apologies for the lack of recent data, and that it's the US, but...) had the most-cited reasons for an abortion of:
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
(source: http://
As can be seen, medical concerns come very low down on the list -- although this was clearly a multiple-choice essay. There were approximately 800,000 abortions in the US in 2004.
Regardless, anyway, of what you think about abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, opening the process up legally can lead to these processes being carried out for the lightest of reasons. I'm not calling for abortion to be outlawed again, although it does seem to me that there are better reasons for abortions than the top one given in this survey.
Legalising Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could well lead to similar reasons being given. While they remain technically outlawed but unlikely to lead to prosecution if the reasons are legitimate, it provides the most stringent test possible on each case. That seems to me to ensure that those who assist suicides, or want to ease their sufferings at the end of life, can do so with confidence that they will not be prosecuted; while those who really had an ulterior motive or pressured someone into ending their life will be found out.
Legalising the process will in the long run lead to it escaping the attention of the law.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of assisted suicide for a number of reasons: life is too valuable, death is too permanent, most people don't have a choice, social pressures may be dangerous, etc. At one level we are already seeing similar affects in abortion. A 2004 study in the US (apologies for the lack of recent data, and that it's the US, but...) had the most-cited reasons for an abortion of:
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Cannot afford a baby now
48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Do not feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
(source: http://
As can be seen, medical concerns come very low down on the list -- although this was clearly a multiple-choice essay. There were approximately 800,000 abortions in the US in 2004.
Regardless, anyway, of what you think about abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, opening the process up legally can lead to these processes being carried out for the lightest of reasons. I'm not calling for abortion to be outlawed again, although it does seem to me that there are better reasons for abortions than the top one given in this survey.
Legalising Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could well lead to similar reasons being given. While they remain technically outlawed but unlikely to lead to prosecution if the reasons are legitimate, it provides the most stringent test possible on each case. That seems to me to ensure that those who assist suicides, or want to ease their sufferings at the end of life, can do so with confidence that they will not be prosecuted; while those who really had an ulterior motive or pressured someone into ending their life will be found out.
Legalising the process will in the long run lead to it escaping the attention of the law.
@ Jim - Abortion should be a separate debate. It should not be conflated with a debate on euthanasia.
I will say this about abortion. Much of peoples unease - much of the emotive language used to argue against abortion - is related to late-stage abortions.
A single cell or a blastocyst can hardly be considered a human being.
Anyway, as far as euthanasia is concerned - I would dispute the OPs premise that the idea of euthanasia is well supported in the population. I doubt that very much, all though I have not looked for the figures.
The law as it stands is most certainly not adequate or fit for purpose. A doctor prescribing a compassionate overdose in the case of terminal, end-stage cancer runs the risk of being struck off.
Several of the more recent high profile cases brought to the Lords have involved people, clearly compos mentis, whose quality of life is so intolerable to them, so lacking in dignity or so full of pain, that they wish to take control and end their misery.Perfectly understandably, they wish to ensure that their loved one, who might be compassionate to help them end their life are not prosecuted - as they technically might be at present.
Otherwise, there only alternative right now is a trip to Dignitas in Switzerland. This cannot be right.
Others have made the point. We are quite prepared to end the suffering of an animal, but somehow the suffering of a human is seen as necessary, because human life must be maintained, extended, whatever the personal cost to the sufferer in loss of dignity, loss of function, extremes of pain.
I most certainly would like to be able to arrange my own death, should i be in a terminal decline,were my life to become full of pain and suffering, or reduced to helpless paralysis, or diminished mental acuity - and with no realistic treatment to reverse these symptoms in sight - and I would want to know that any doctor or any family or friend that might aid me in my desire, my wish to end my life would not be subject to possible arrest or prosecution.
I will say this about abortion. Much of peoples unease - much of the emotive language used to argue against abortion - is related to late-stage abortions.
A single cell or a blastocyst can hardly be considered a human being.
Anyway, as far as euthanasia is concerned - I would dispute the OPs premise that the idea of euthanasia is well supported in the population. I doubt that very much, all though I have not looked for the figures.
The law as it stands is most certainly not adequate or fit for purpose. A doctor prescribing a compassionate overdose in the case of terminal, end-stage cancer runs the risk of being struck off.
Several of the more recent high profile cases brought to the Lords have involved people, clearly compos mentis, whose quality of life is so intolerable to them, so lacking in dignity or so full of pain, that they wish to take control and end their misery.Perfectly understandably, they wish to ensure that their loved one, who might be compassionate to help them end their life are not prosecuted - as they technically might be at present.
Otherwise, there only alternative right now is a trip to Dignitas in Switzerland. This cannot be right.
Others have made the point. We are quite prepared to end the suffering of an animal, but somehow the suffering of a human is seen as necessary, because human life must be maintained, extended, whatever the personal cost to the sufferer in loss of dignity, loss of function, extremes of pain.
I most certainly would like to be able to arrange my own death, should i be in a terminal decline,were my life to become full of pain and suffering, or reduced to helpless paralysis, or diminished mental acuity - and with no realistic treatment to reverse these symptoms in sight - and I would want to know that any doctor or any family or friend that might aid me in my desire, my wish to end my life would not be subject to possible arrest or prosecution.
The current guidelines are only that........'guidelines'.
Should a decision be taken to prosecute someone for 'assisting suicide', the law as is stands *now* will have to be applied.
It is surely not beyond the wit of the Legislature to come up with a stringent set of circumstances/evidenciary responsibilities, etc. to be set in place before acknowledging the Right to die/Assisting suicide is permissible in a set of very particular circumstances?
Should a decision be taken to prosecute someone for 'assisting suicide', the law as is stands *now* will have to be applied.
It is surely not beyond the wit of the Legislature to come up with a stringent set of circumstances/evidenciary responsibilities, etc. to be set in place before acknowledging the Right to die/Assisting suicide is permissible in a set of very particular circumstances?
As you might have guessed, I don't think they should be separate debates -- at least not entirely. Yes, on the one hand you have something that is arguably just some biomatter and on the other you have someone who is alive but wants to die.
The ultimate point I was making, though, is that the consequences of legalising abortion have included both the positives that a woman can go through the procedure safely and confidentially; but also, that the procedure can be unregulated. I would argue that legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide could go through the same process, of going from severely tested to not tested at all.
In cases where somebody has died, it's quite right to my mind that anyone involved in their death should be at least to some level scrutinized to ensure that their motive was sound. A doctor who euthanises a patient on completely compassionate may well "risk" being struck off, but is usually not. A doctor who kills a patient and pretends that it was compassionate should not be allowed to get away with that and hide behind the veil of "compassion".
While never having been in a position to have to make this decision for myself or someone else I cannot possibly tell you what I would do. What I can tell you, though, is that I would want to know that if I made the decision to help someone die I would be safe, but if I did it without their consent I would not be. It seems to me that this is best ensured, not by legalising assisted suicide, but by keeping the status quo, so that each case is scrutinised rigorously. That way we can know that everyone who died via euthanasia or assisted suicide chose to do so, and that their death was on compassionate
grounds.
Take away that need for, or reason to, scrutinise the case and you only need one person to be forced into killing themselves for it to be one person too many. And no-one may ever know, because why ask the questions?
The ultimate point I was making, though, is that the consequences of legalising abortion have included both the positives that a woman can go through the procedure safely and confidentially; but also, that the procedure can be unregulated. I would argue that legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide could go through the same process, of going from severely tested to not tested at all.
In cases where somebody has died, it's quite right to my mind that anyone involved in their death should be at least to some level scrutinized to ensure that their motive was sound. A doctor who euthanises a patient on completely compassionate may well "risk" being struck off, but is usually not. A doctor who kills a patient and pretends that it was compassionate should not be allowed to get away with that and hide behind the veil of "compassion".
While never having been in a position to have to make this decision for myself or someone else I cannot possibly tell you what I would do. What I can tell you, though, is that I would want to know that if I made the decision to help someone die I would be safe, but if I did it without their consent I would not be. It seems to me that this is best ensured, not by legalising assisted suicide, but by keeping the status quo, so that each case is scrutinised rigorously. That way we can know that everyone who died via euthanasia or assisted suicide chose to do so, and that their death was on compassionate
grounds.
Take away that need for, or reason to, scrutinise the case and you only need one person to be forced into killing themselves for it to be one person too many. And no-one may ever know, because why ask the questions?
@Jim I think you are wrong to continue to conflate the two issues of abortion and euthanasia.
Any system of euthanasia should require extensive checks and balances and documentation and witnessing and attendant determination of state of mind and state of health and prognosis of course. All this can be done quite easily right now - all that is stopping it is a fear of the right being misused, or the remit for it being broadened to include bundling granny off to the termination booth when she gets to be too much of a financial burden to the children, or giving father a suicide pill because of the financial benefit from the inheritance.
These things can be controlled in a proper system. To continue to deny this, to continue to obfuscate and "turn a blind eye" offers the worst of all possible worlds, in my opinion.
As a free individual, of sound mind who has come to the rational decision that disease or health deprives me of everything except merely existing, or where pain is an minute by minute excruciating experience - who in their right mind can possibly argue against a proper, legal framework for me to take my own life and protect those that I select to help me achieve this?
Any system of euthanasia should require extensive checks and balances and documentation and witnessing and attendant determination of state of mind and state of health and prognosis of course. All this can be done quite easily right now - all that is stopping it is a fear of the right being misused, or the remit for it being broadened to include bundling granny off to the termination booth when she gets to be too much of a financial burden to the children, or giving father a suicide pill because of the financial benefit from the inheritance.
These things can be controlled in a proper system. To continue to deny this, to continue to obfuscate and "turn a blind eye" offers the worst of all possible worlds, in my opinion.
As a free individual, of sound mind who has come to the rational decision that disease or health deprives me of everything except merely existing, or where pain is an minute by minute excruciating experience - who in their right mind can possibly argue against a proper, legal framework for me to take my own life and protect those that I select to help me achieve this?
Again, though, those same checks and balances we were assured of in abortion. Or, similarly, Capital punishment was withdrawn on the understanding that "life imprisonment should mean life", and we see that it often does not any more.
The point of bringing these issues in is not because of their moral[i similarities, but because of their [i]legal] ones. I am pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. In both cases though the legislation was passed with certain safeguards or promises/ assurances that were later reined back, so that today we get stories like this:
http://
To say that it would be fine to legalise euthanasia, which is certainly far more of a moral maze than either of the above two, because "there will be proper regulation", is to overlook that the passage of time tends to lead to deregulation of these issues. The check and balances may initially be strong, but they will fade. People will become sloppy, will lie, will check or bend the system. The system itself may well eventually stop bothering to check.
No, the abortion laws set an important precedent for these issues that I think is very relevant.
The point of bringing these issues in is not because of their moral[i similarities, but because of their [i]legal] ones. I am pro-choice and anti-capital punishment. In both cases though the legislation was passed with certain safeguards or promises/ assurances that were later reined back, so that today we get stories like this:
http://
To say that it would be fine to legalise euthanasia, which is certainly far more of a moral maze than either of the above two, because "there will be proper regulation", is to overlook that the passage of time tends to lead to deregulation of these issues. The check and balances may initially be strong, but they will fade. People will become sloppy, will lie, will check or bend the system. The system itself may well eventually stop bothering to check.
No, the abortion laws set an important precedent for these issues that I think is very relevant.
It's been empasized by others who are certainly more eloquently articulate than myself, that there is the rule of the "Three 'P's" when the government (at least here in the U.S.) becomes involved in an emotionally charged and controversial subject such as euthanasia. The first "P" is that it is prohibited, secondly, it's permitted and finally evolves into being promoted.
With this reality in mind, the problem is that death is permanent (in most cases) and once the government becomes involved and reaches a point of promoting or at least prescribing death for individuals it's less than a hop, skip and small jump to a process of eliminating 'undesirables'.
This, even for scoffers, is readily seen in history... recent and further past.
As to the argument by pro-abortionists that a 'single cell' or the euphemistic 'fetus' is certainly not a human... what exactly is the basis for such a pronouncement? Science tells us that everything that the fertilized ovum will ever become is already present at the instance of fertilization. The immediate argument is usuall along the lines of "it doesn't even resemble a human"... fine... but a new born baby certainly only superficially resembles the grown adult, much less the elderly human could become.
Since the legalization of abortion here in the U.S. (1973) more than 55 million (with an M) babies have been aborted. The aborted baby is uncermoniously dumped into a waste receiver and then incinerated... how extremely sad... and as jim360 has pointed out, the basis for most of the baby's deaths is its inconvenience to the mother. How far we've advanced, no?
With this reality in mind, the problem is that death is permanent (in most cases) and once the government becomes involved and reaches a point of promoting or at least prescribing death for individuals it's less than a hop, skip and small jump to a process of eliminating 'undesirables'.
This, even for scoffers, is readily seen in history... recent and further past.
As to the argument by pro-abortionists that a 'single cell' or the euphemistic 'fetus' is certainly not a human... what exactly is the basis for such a pronouncement? Science tells us that everything that the fertilized ovum will ever become is already present at the instance of fertilization. The immediate argument is usuall along the lines of "it doesn't even resemble a human"... fine... but a new born baby certainly only superficially resembles the grown adult, much less the elderly human could become.
Since the legalization of abortion here in the U.S. (1973) more than 55 million (with an M) babies have been aborted. The aborted baby is uncermoniously dumped into a waste receiver and then incinerated... how extremely sad... and as jim360 has pointed out, the basis for most of the baby's deaths is its inconvenience to the mother. How far we've advanced, no?
Latest Posts
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank35 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News41 mins ago