Strands #247 “More Than Just...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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
@ Clanad And on cue, the use of abortion to further muddy the waters.
No sane or rational person can possibly describe a single cell or a blastocyst as a human being - but that hardly suits the emotive language of those who wish to reign back choice and the availability of abortion.
You argument is in essence the "slippery slope" argument, with a soupcon of state promoted euthanasia. Again, emotive arguments, lacking a rational basis for that fear.
I would far rather we allow individuals to make a choice, and be allowed to make that choice, with the states forebearance provided the proper checks and balances have been followed.
No sane or rational person can possibly describe a single cell or a blastocyst as a human being - but that hardly suits the emotive language of those who wish to reign back choice and the availability of abortion.
You argument is in essence the "slippery slope" argument, with a soupcon of state promoted euthanasia. Again, emotive arguments, lacking a rational basis for that fear.
I would far rather we allow individuals to make a choice, and be allowed to make that choice, with the states forebearance provided the proper checks and balances have been followed.
Oh, I've made my case. Perhaps not successfully, but I've made it.
I've wanted to avoid straying into the morality of euthanasia because I honestly cannot understand the rush to die. Or perhaps more accurately, the rush to help someone else die. I don't know about you, but I know that (a) if someone I loved wanted to die, I'd do my utmost to persuade them not to, and (b) I hope very much that if the roles were reversed, they'd do the same.
I'm not saying exactly that it would be a case of "I want to die" -- "Oh, here's some morphine then", for most people, but in the long run I would rather take every possible effort to keep someone alive until it is absolutely clear that trying to do so is futile and not even worth it anyway on quality of life grounds.
And I am worried that in any scenario where it is easier, or at least legal, to carry out euthanasia or assisted suicide, then the reasons for doing so would inevitably become wider.
Our positions are, I think, closer than you might believe -- we just have different ideas of how to implement it. Everyone will want safeguards for this, safeguards that last, that protect people from being pressured into ending their life. I think that is more easily ensured by having the test be that people have to demonstrate that the death was compassionate.
I've wanted to avoid straying into the morality of euthanasia because I honestly cannot understand the rush to die. Or perhaps more accurately, the rush to help someone else die. I don't know about you, but I know that (a) if someone I loved wanted to die, I'd do my utmost to persuade them not to, and (b) I hope very much that if the roles were reversed, they'd do the same.
I'm not saying exactly that it would be a case of "I want to die" -- "Oh, here's some morphine then", for most people, but in the long run I would rather take every possible effort to keep someone alive until it is absolutely clear that trying to do so is futile and not even worth it anyway on quality of life grounds.
And I am worried that in any scenario where it is easier, or at least legal, to carry out euthanasia or assisted suicide, then the reasons for doing so would inevitably become wider.
Our positions are, I think, closer than you might believe -- we just have different ideas of how to implement it. Everyone will want safeguards for this, safeguards that last, that protect people from being pressured into ending their life. I think that is more easily ensured by having the test be that people have to demonstrate that the death was compassionate.
The fact that some women choose to have an abortion for what are in my opinion the wrong reasons is not a good enough reason to prohibit them. If you want the prime reason for abortions not to be 'It will dramatically change my life' then consider bringing your daughters up not to be self absorbed, sexually irresponsible people who seem not to understand the gravity of what they are doing.
Abortion is vital, and must remain available to all below 21 weeks gestation and some above that in exceptional circumstances, and unhappy though it is that some shallow people use it as a form of birth control I would argue ferociously that it must be part of any civilised society.
I agree with others that the abortion issue should not be discussed with the Euthansia one though as it's muddying the waters.
In my opinion, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide can be nothing but a good and compassionate thing in the right circumstances. Life is not always the most valuable thing there is.
Abortion is vital, and must remain available to all below 21 weeks gestation and some above that in exceptional circumstances, and unhappy though it is that some shallow people use it as a form of birth control I would argue ferociously that it must be part of any civilised society.
I agree with others that the abortion issue should not be discussed with the Euthansia one though as it's muddying the waters.
In my opinion, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide can be nothing but a good and compassionate thing in the right circumstances. Life is not always the most valuable thing there is.
This link will take you to a Euthanasia being carried out at Digitas in Switzerland, it isnt pleasant to watch obviously but it does show that it is very dignified.
This link shows the full event, DO NOT watch it if it will upset you unduly please.
This is from a Terry Pratchett documentary shown on BBC a couple of years ago.
This link shows the full event, DO NOT watch it if it will upset you unduly please.
This is from a Terry Pratchett documentary shown on BBC a couple of years ago.
Sharingan:
"The fact that some women choose to have an abortion for what are in my opinion the wrong reasons is not a good enough reason to prohibit them."
Agreed.
"If you want the prime reason for abortions not to be 'It will dramatically change my life' then consider bringing your daughters up not to be self absorbed, sexually irresponsible people who seem not to understand the gravity of what they are doing."
Also agreed, though I don't have any of my own to put this into practice.
"Abortion is vital, and must remain available to all below 21 weeks gestation and some above that in exceptional circumstances, and unhappy though it is that some shallow people use it as a form of birth control I would argue ferociously that it must be part of any civilised society."
Still agreed -- and I am not trying to argue otherwise. I'm just arguing that this was not the original intention.
"I agree with others that the abortion issue should not be discussed with the Euthansia one though as it's muddying the waters."
Yes on moral grounds, no on legal ones, because at one level abortion sets a precedent for what happens when medical safeguards are set up in a moral issue. Result? They can get ignored in the long run.
"In my opinion, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide can be nothing but a good and compassionate thing in the right circumstances. Life is not always the most valuable thing there is."
In the right circumstances, perhaps. That's not really up to me. The point is that we should always ask whether or not any case was "under the right circumstances." I think that is ensured in the current system, and worry that it would not be if euthanasia were legalised.
"The fact that some women choose to have an abortion for what are in my opinion the wrong reasons is not a good enough reason to prohibit them."
Agreed.
"If you want the prime reason for abortions not to be 'It will dramatically change my life' then consider bringing your daughters up not to be self absorbed, sexually irresponsible people who seem not to understand the gravity of what they are doing."
Also agreed, though I don't have any of my own to put this into practice.
"Abortion is vital, and must remain available to all below 21 weeks gestation and some above that in exceptional circumstances, and unhappy though it is that some shallow people use it as a form of birth control I would argue ferociously that it must be part of any civilised society."
Still agreed -- and I am not trying to argue otherwise. I'm just arguing that this was not the original intention.
"I agree with others that the abortion issue should not be discussed with the Euthansia one though as it's muddying the waters."
Yes on moral grounds, no on legal ones, because at one level abortion sets a precedent for what happens when medical safeguards are set up in a moral issue. Result? They can get ignored in the long run.
"In my opinion, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide can be nothing but a good and compassionate thing in the right circumstances. Life is not always the most valuable thing there is."
In the right circumstances, perhaps. That's not really up to me. The point is that we should always ask whether or not any case was "under the right circumstances." I think that is ensured in the current system, and worry that it would not be if euthanasia were legalised.
@ Jim.
Why would you wish to extend the suffering of a loved one, against their own expressed wishes? How is it your feelings, your emotions, your decisions, should be granted greater weight than theirs, when it is their expressed wish?
And of course we are talking about a very specific scenario - compos mentis, severe impairment of quality of life, no reasonable chance of a reversal or cure.
All countries are grappling with this. Vermont have are moving toward an end of life bill
http://
And if you want arguments from those who really do appreciate the situation, listen to Terry Pratchett
http://
Read Lord Falconers proposals for an assisted dying bill;
http://
How about Tony Nicklinson?
These people offer a powerful case for the right to control their own destiny, and Lord Falconer proposes a system to prevent abuse of such a system. Society should extend their compassion to these people as well.
Why would you wish to extend the suffering of a loved one, against their own expressed wishes? How is it your feelings, your emotions, your decisions, should be granted greater weight than theirs, when it is their expressed wish?
And of course we are talking about a very specific scenario - compos mentis, severe impairment of quality of life, no reasonable chance of a reversal or cure.
All countries are grappling with this. Vermont have are moving toward an end of life bill
http://
And if you want arguments from those who really do appreciate the situation, listen to Terry Pratchett
http://
Read Lord Falconers proposals for an assisted dying bill;
http://
How about Tony Nicklinson?
These people offer a powerful case for the right to control their own destiny, and Lord Falconer proposes a system to prevent abuse of such a system. Society should extend their compassion to these people as well.
Why am I suddenly the baddie just because I want to make sure that someone asking to die really means it? In the first case people can be depressed and say things they do not mean, or think things they later regret, when they are no longer depressed. Things in that scenario can get better, and yes I would fight to stop someone who was "only" suffering from mental illnesses from killing themselves for as long as it took.
Someone in pain, physical, unendurable pain, is a different matter entirely. Still, though, I would want to be sure it was their genuine wish before I took any action. That needn't necessarily take too long, but it should take long enough for all concerned to be satisfied that ending someone's life was the right thing to do.
Someone in pain, physical, unendurable pain, is a different matter entirely. Still, though, I would want to be sure it was their genuine wish before I took any action. That needn't necessarily take too long, but it should take long enough for all concerned to be satisfied that ending someone's life was the right thing to do.
"Life is not always the most valuable thing there is" encapsulates clearly the differences between the two positions.
LG, I only addressed the issue of abortion since it was already introduced and seems to me to be adjunct to this discussion.
The problem with decryng the 'slippery slope' argument is that it's so self-evident when one considers recent history... but you choose not to address that aspect, but, rather are willing to place trust in a government of men (and women) who have, generally proven to be untrustworthy in most matters... or do I read the posts here and elsewhere criticizing elected officials decisions daily incorrectly?
Additionally, has not the issue of euthanasia already been introduced under the guise of socialized medicine.
Here in the U.S., we're already seeing, with the advancement of 'Obamacare', the move towards restriciting certain procedures and medications based on a cost/benefit curriculum, as well as reading about the same in even the U.K. under NHS.
Finally, I'm unable to comprehend why killing a baby is 'vital', but then I'm numbered, joyfully, among the less than "sane or rational" individuals that can describe a 'single cell' as a human being... I can provide you with an extensive list of various scientists of all stripes that agree with that assessment if you'd like.
LG, I only addressed the issue of abortion since it was already introduced and seems to me to be adjunct to this discussion.
The problem with decryng the 'slippery slope' argument is that it's so self-evident when one considers recent history... but you choose not to address that aspect, but, rather are willing to place trust in a government of men (and women) who have, generally proven to be untrustworthy in most matters... or do I read the posts here and elsewhere criticizing elected officials decisions daily incorrectly?
Additionally, has not the issue of euthanasia already been introduced under the guise of socialized medicine.
Here in the U.S., we're already seeing, with the advancement of 'Obamacare', the move towards restriciting certain procedures and medications based on a cost/benefit curriculum, as well as reading about the same in even the U.K. under NHS.
Finally, I'm unable to comprehend why killing a baby is 'vital', but then I'm numbered, joyfully, among the less than "sane or rational" individuals that can describe a 'single cell' as a human being... I can provide you with an extensive list of various scientists of all stripes that agree with that assessment if you'd like.
@Clanad - I tire of hearing obamacare and "socialised medicine" being used as a derisory term, often holding up the US system as being superior to that enjoyed elsewhere around the globe. The very last thing we need is to be reminded of the Palin death panels, that obamacare and socialised medicine and medicine the UK and europe offers.
Abortion muddies the waters about assisted dying, and the emotive arguments of anti-abortionists further muddies the waters. Any rational scientist that asserts that a single cell or a blastocyst is a human being has had their rationality subverted by their faith.
Abortion muddies the waters about assisted dying, and the emotive arguments of anti-abortionists further muddies the waters. Any rational scientist that asserts that a single cell or a blastocyst is a human being has had their rationality subverted by their faith.
@ Jim
You are not the bad guy, but I fail to understand why you might favour the status quo over introducing a proper framework that respects individuals and extends to them a compassionate hearing to make their case, free of stigma, with every assurance that the nominated friend/family or doctor aiding them to end their life is guaranteed freedom from prosecution.
You are not the bad guy, but I fail to understand why you might favour the status quo over introducing a proper framework that respects individuals and extends to them a compassionate hearing to make their case, free of stigma, with every assurance that the nominated friend/family or doctor aiding them to end their life is guaranteed freedom from prosecution.
"I fail to understand why you might favour the status quo over introducing a proper framework that respects individuals and extends to them a compassionate hearing to make their case, free of stigma, with every assurance that the nominated friend/family or doctor aiding them to end their life is guaranteed freedom from prosecution."
I think it's because that's how I see the status quo. If that's a mistaken impression then, well, I need to do more reading into it. But the statistics I quoted from the CPS earlier in this thread suggest that a) these cases are rare anyway, and b) that when they do come up they are very rarely taken to court -- so far only 1 case in four years has gone to court, out of 68 (possibly 8 more, depending on CPS decisions).
I think it's because that's how I see the status quo. If that's a mistaken impression then, well, I need to do more reading into it. But the statistics I quoted from the CPS earlier in this thread suggest that a) these cases are rare anyway, and b) that when they do come up they are very rarely taken to court -- so far only 1 case in four years has gone to court, out of 68 (possibly 8 more, depending on CPS decisions).
Latest Posts
Why Is The "Police Watchdog...
News1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Sport9 mins ago
News9 mins ago