Society & Culture1 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
I sympathize with your tiredness, LG... but, fact is, when the government takes over the administration and highly regulates any industry, it is, by definition, socialized.
At no point was I holding up the U.S. system as the ultimate in the way things should be, but by the same token, I'm unwilling to delegate such authority to people that have shown they can't even balance a national budget and are often found morally corrupted by the system to which they'e been elected.
LG continues to not address the historical evidence of other societies that have corrupted what was, intially, thought to be a good thing. The most recent is China's mandating abortion (sorry) for any family that already has one child... other, ad infinitum such examples, many in our recent memory, no. Why do we expect we would do any better, given time and opportunity?
At no point was I holding up the U.S. system as the ultimate in the way things should be, but by the same token, I'm unwilling to delegate such authority to people that have shown they can't even balance a national budget and are often found morally corrupted by the system to which they'e been elected.
LG continues to not address the historical evidence of other societies that have corrupted what was, intially, thought to be a good thing. The most recent is China's mandating abortion (sorry) for any family that already has one child... other, ad infinitum such examples, many in our recent memory, no. Why do we expect we would do any better, given time and opportunity?
@Clanad
You talk the talk of the libertarian right in the US as if that has some kind of mandate for truthiness and rightness. I am not debating the rightness or otherwise of political systems with you, especially with respect to health systems.
Why should we not expect to do better, given the historical examples of abuse? Are you saying we can never learn from our mistakes? The worst excesses of a democracy tend to inefficiency and the venal - I cannot imagine some kind of slide into state sanctioned euthanasia of undesirables. It should not be beyond the wit of man in a society that values liberty, freedom of choice, compassion and fairness to devise a system that allows for rigorous checks and balances, whilst at the same time affording those whose life is a daily torment the prospect of a controlled and peaceful end.
You talk the talk of the libertarian right in the US as if that has some kind of mandate for truthiness and rightness. I am not debating the rightness or otherwise of political systems with you, especially with respect to health systems.
Why should we not expect to do better, given the historical examples of abuse? Are you saying we can never learn from our mistakes? The worst excesses of a democracy tend to inefficiency and the venal - I cannot imagine some kind of slide into state sanctioned euthanasia of undesirables. It should not be beyond the wit of man in a society that values liberty, freedom of choice, compassion and fairness to devise a system that allows for rigorous checks and balances, whilst at the same time affording those whose life is a daily torment the prospect of a controlled and peaceful end.
Should be compulsory for some.
On a more realistic note, a persons life is their own, and if they are of sound mind and decide life holds no value for them, for reasons of health or whatever, then I don't see it is anyone else's right to interfere with their desire to leave.
Lots of things can be feared because of the slippery slope argument but the correct thing to do is to identify the risks and put in safeguards to ensure you don't slip down it. Including ensuring no one is pressurised.
It is allowing someone to properly value their own life, it has nothing to do with devaluing it. The alternative is to refuse to value it and take the easy decision to say you aren't going to consider it, to force everyone to always stay alive regardless.
On a more realistic note, a persons life is their own, and if they are of sound mind and decide life holds no value for them, for reasons of health or whatever, then I don't see it is anyone else's right to interfere with their desire to leave.
Lots of things can be feared because of the slippery slope argument but the correct thing to do is to identify the risks and put in safeguards to ensure you don't slip down it. Including ensuring no one is pressurised.
It is allowing someone to properly value their own life, it has nothing to do with devaluing it. The alternative is to refuse to value it and take the easy decision to say you aren't going to consider it, to force everyone to always stay alive regardless.
I dont think it would ever be an easy, simplistic option - someone in a bit of a mood saying 'i want to die' is not going to be bumped off straightaway.
it would be a thorough well thought through procedure, based primarily on the wishes of the patient.
and the advice of the doctors would likely be secondary - they would assess the patients state of mind, ensure they were not being 'forced' into it, and assess their suffering and chances of recovery.
only if all this was satisfied would they authorise it.
the wishes of family etc would surely be the last consideration,
being a 'burden' is irrelevant.
it will always be a last resort - it seems like some people think it will become almost as common as taking an aspirin.
it would be a thorough well thought through procedure, based primarily on the wishes of the patient.
and the advice of the doctors would likely be secondary - they would assess the patients state of mind, ensure they were not being 'forced' into it, and assess their suffering and chances of recovery.
only if all this was satisfied would they authorise it.
the wishes of family etc would surely be the last consideration,
being a 'burden' is irrelevant.
it will always be a last resort - it seems like some people think it will become almost as common as taking an aspirin.
I don't think that -- I don't see a sudden deluge of people getting bumped off earlier because they felt a burden. I just think it's likely to happen occasionally. Rarely, but only once is too often.
All laws are open to abuse and loopholes. Laws that legalise killing and suicide will be no different, but the consequences of exploiting those loopholes, no matter how rarely it happens, would be that much more tragic. It seems to me that keeping assisted suicide technically illegal but unlikely to be prosecuted avoids most of that risk of loopholes.
All laws are open to abuse and loopholes. Laws that legalise killing and suicide will be no different, but the consequences of exploiting those loopholes, no matter how rarely it happens, would be that much more tragic. It seems to me that keeping assisted suicide technically illegal but unlikely to be prosecuted avoids most of that risk of loopholes.
And it seems to me that this "It seems to me that keeping assisted suicide technically illegal but unlikely to be prosecuted avoids most of that risk of loopholes" Is the worst of all possible worlds.
Hopefully, as more states in the US take up the law, much like Vermont, people will lose their fear..
Hopefully, as more states in the US take up the law, much like Vermont, people will lose their fear..
I agree that abortion and euthanasia are related topics.
IMO the fact that a mother can choose to terminate her unborn baby - which may be just a few cells or may be recognisably a human being, albeit still dependent on her, or may in exceptional circumstances even be a viable life - is upsetting but on balance it is probably best that it's legal for those who want to follow that path.
What's the really odd is that, if you hold the position that abortion should be legal, you could then think that it would NOT be appropriate for somebody to choose to end their own life.
With abortion, life is being ended before it's even begun, at the choice of someone else. With euthanasia, life is being ended, when it's spent but before it becomes too painful, at the choice of the holder of that life.
Surely either both abortion and euthanasia are OK or they're both not OK (or, if only one of them is OK, it's euthanasia)! I don't understand how, in this country, abortion is legal and euthanasia isn't.
Either both legal or both illegal, IMO.
IMO the fact that a mother can choose to terminate her unborn baby - which may be just a few cells or may be recognisably a human being, albeit still dependent on her, or may in exceptional circumstances even be a viable life - is upsetting but on balance it is probably best that it's legal for those who want to follow that path.
What's the really odd is that, if you hold the position that abortion should be legal, you could then think that it would NOT be appropriate for somebody to choose to end their own life.
With abortion, life is being ended before it's even begun, at the choice of someone else. With euthanasia, life is being ended, when it's spent but before it becomes too painful, at the choice of the holder of that life.
Surely either both abortion and euthanasia are OK or they're both not OK (or, if only one of them is OK, it's euthanasia)! I don't understand how, in this country, abortion is legal and euthanasia isn't.
Either both legal or both illegal, IMO.
Not really. Abortion was legalised primarily to protect life -- that of the mother's -- in cases where the pregnancy, if carried to term, would endanger the mother's physical or mental health. What has happened since then is that the definition of "endangering mental health" has broadened somewhat, so that some abortions are being carried out on very tenuous grounds indeed. An investigation by the Telegraph a year ago, referenced earlier in this thread, saw some abortions apparently being offered in the case where the sex of the foetus was a girl and the family wanted a boy. As far as I can tell this case has not been followed up since the story broke (or at least, not yet brought to court), so perhaps the allegations were never proven, but it does show that abortion, despite being regulated, is open to abuse.
By contrast, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about protecting "life". Or at least, not as the law seems to view it, placing life as in "continued existence" over life as in "quality of life". In cases where someone has "no quality of life", whatever that actually means, it is very difficult to argue against euthanasia, or assisted suicide, on that particular case. Indeed, I have tried not to throughout this thread (and another related one focusing on legalising or normalising suicide in general).
The debate between Lazygun and me (and others) seems to focus on how to separate these cases from others where assisted suicide is not so justifiable, and boils down to the considerations of what would happen if assisted suicide and euthanasia were, or were not legalised. It then becomes entirely a legal question rather than a moral one.
What happened when abortion was illegal? Women, desperate to hide their pregnancy from their family and friends, might turn to dangerous back-street abortions. This was often a dangerous procedure, as much to the mother's life as to the foetus, and some died (I don't know of any specific statistics, but any number is too many). For this reason alone abortion has to remain legal, so that it can be carried out safely. Any consequences of "too many" abortions, or those carried out for the "wrong reasons" (in the US it seems that a sizable number of abortions are based not on the woman's choice but on pressure applied by parents or partners) are perhaps sad but can be dealt with by better regulation.
What happens now with assisted suicide and euthanasia being illegal? It seems to be only a Western obsession, and those lucky enough to find the money can go to Dignitas, so there is no greater danger of death. Quite the reverse, actually. But there is a danger of loved ones who make the decision to help end someone's life being prosecuted. These fears were relaxed in 2010 for relatives of the person wanting to die; a similar case to help protect doctors from prosecution is being brought before the Court of Appeal today.
The other main consequence of the status quo is that every time someone does help a loved one end their life, then the police and CPS are obliged to investigate and determine whether or not it was for compassionate reasons rather than sinister ones. The result is that almost 87% of 68 recent cases in the UK have been investigated but not prosecuted -- the remaining 9 are still under investigation or awaiting a decision. Those who make this choice for compassionate reasons do not end up in jail. On the other hand, anyone who was not so justified will be found out and caught. Indeed, the fear of prosecution may be ensuring that such cases don't even come up.
Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty". Every time someone died in such cases, it would be assumed perfectly proper, and the onus would be on the police to prove that they had cause to investigate. I think it's now LazyGun's job to explain how he would ensure that this does not happen, that such cases still never occur in the future.
By contrast, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not about protecting "life". Or at least, not as the law seems to view it, placing life as in "continued existence" over life as in "quality of life". In cases where someone has "no quality of life", whatever that actually means, it is very difficult to argue against euthanasia, or assisted suicide, on that particular case. Indeed, I have tried not to throughout this thread (and another related one focusing on legalising or normalising suicide in general).
The debate between Lazygun and me (and others) seems to focus on how to separate these cases from others where assisted suicide is not so justifiable, and boils down to the considerations of what would happen if assisted suicide and euthanasia were, or were not legalised. It then becomes entirely a legal question rather than a moral one.
What happened when abortion was illegal? Women, desperate to hide their pregnancy from their family and friends, might turn to dangerous back-street abortions. This was often a dangerous procedure, as much to the mother's life as to the foetus, and some died (I don't know of any specific statistics, but any number is too many). For this reason alone abortion has to remain legal, so that it can be carried out safely. Any consequences of "too many" abortions, or those carried out for the "wrong reasons" (in the US it seems that a sizable number of abortions are based not on the woman's choice but on pressure applied by parents or partners) are perhaps sad but can be dealt with by better regulation.
What happens now with assisted suicide and euthanasia being illegal? It seems to be only a Western obsession, and those lucky enough to find the money can go to Dignitas, so there is no greater danger of death. Quite the reverse, actually. But there is a danger of loved ones who make the decision to help end someone's life being prosecuted. These fears were relaxed in 2010 for relatives of the person wanting to die; a similar case to help protect doctors from prosecution is being brought before the Court of Appeal today.
The other main consequence of the status quo is that every time someone does help a loved one end their life, then the police and CPS are obliged to investigate and determine whether or not it was for compassionate reasons rather than sinister ones. The result is that almost 87% of 68 recent cases in the UK have been investigated but not prosecuted -- the remaining 9 are still under investigation or awaiting a decision. Those who make this choice for compassionate reasons do not end up in jail. On the other hand, anyone who was not so justified will be found out and caught. Indeed, the fear of prosecution may be ensuring that such cases don't even come up.
Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty". Every time someone died in such cases, it would be assumed perfectly proper, and the onus would be on the police to prove that they had cause to investigate. I think it's now LazyGun's job to explain how he would ensure that this does not happen, that such cases still never occur in the future.
Continually conflating abortion with a discussion explicitly about euthanasia in the UK just deflects the conversation away from the original question, and adds confusion.
If you want a debate or discussion about abortion, that should be in a separate thread. One could discuss the current debate in the US over the availability of the "morning after" pill, for instance...
As to assisted dying - the principal fear that fuels an objection to changing the status quo appears to be that such a law could be abused, allowing for unlawful killing or what have you. This is why I think abortion was originally brought into the discussion, as an example of how a law can be broadened or expanded beyond its original intent.
"Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty"."
Not so. Rather than shifting any investigation to something after the fact, a possible murder investigation, the investigation of the circumstances is carried out in advance, by a tribunal or something similar. where the case is made - quality of life, prognosis, mental state of the individual, family wishes, any undue pressure, possible beneficiaries etc.
"I think it's now LazyGun's job to explain how he would ensure that this does not happen, that such cases still never occur in the future."
Really? I am a legislator now, am I?. No, I don't think the onus is on me to present a fully referenced and thought out method to ensure no mission creep or loopholes - thats the job of the lawmakers and parliamentarians. If the true concern over offering individuals the dignity and control of their own end of life, there should be no problems with putting checks and balance in place to ensure this.
What I want is an end to this "turn a blind eye" method, which can offer only uncertainty in the minds of those involved - I want us as a society to recognise instead that there are individuals who are at the limits of medical care but have a terminal sentence, with no prospect of cure, who live in pain or anguish or complete lack of any dignity and just want to end it. We should respect their wishes, and allow them that facility. That would be the grown up thing to do.
If you want a debate or discussion about abortion, that should be in a separate thread. One could discuss the current debate in the US over the availability of the "morning after" pill, for instance...
As to assisted dying - the principal fear that fuels an objection to changing the status quo appears to be that such a law could be abused, allowing for unlawful killing or what have you. This is why I think abortion was originally brought into the discussion, as an example of how a law can be broadened or expanded beyond its original intent.
"Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty"."
Not so. Rather than shifting any investigation to something after the fact, a possible murder investigation, the investigation of the circumstances is carried out in advance, by a tribunal or something similar. where the case is made - quality of life, prognosis, mental state of the individual, family wishes, any undue pressure, possible beneficiaries etc.
"I think it's now LazyGun's job to explain how he would ensure that this does not happen, that such cases still never occur in the future."
Really? I am a legislator now, am I?. No, I don't think the onus is on me to present a fully referenced and thought out method to ensure no mission creep or loopholes - thats the job of the lawmakers and parliamentarians. If the true concern over offering individuals the dignity and control of their own end of life, there should be no problems with putting checks and balance in place to ensure this.
What I want is an end to this "turn a blind eye" method, which can offer only uncertainty in the minds of those involved - I want us as a society to recognise instead that there are individuals who are at the limits of medical care but have a terminal sentence, with no prospect of cure, who live in pain or anguish or complete lack of any dignity and just want to end it. We should respect their wishes, and allow them that facility. That would be the grown up thing to do.
Abortion is not the only example. I think you could just as equally pick any law. So apologies if ever that looked like I was comparing the two morally. It was only for the legal precedent, and maybe some superficial similarities, that I was using it as an example.
//"Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty"."
Not so.//
Not so, if you have the right regulatory framework. While I'm not saying you should be legislator, I do think that it's important to explain why legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide is the better thing to do practically, as well as just ideally. The world is not ideal; any system for state-sanctioned killing could well be abused. And such a system could, potentially, lead to unintended and tragic consequences, even if they would be very rare.
//I want us as a society to recognise instead that there are individuals who are at the limits of medical care but have a terminal sentence, with no prospect of cure, who live in pain or anguish or complete lack of any dignity and just want to end it. We should respect their wishes...//
At no point, I hope, have I argued against such cases being allowed that facility, even though I am obviously uncomfortable with the thought of making that decision. The point is that not all cases would be such, and how do we ensure that only such cases are allowed. You've not really explained why this isn't what happens currently, and why we need to legalise it. Instead, apparently, just sticking to the moral issue. That is not what I am arguing about -- the practicalities are the important things here.
So, in practice, how would you ensure that a) all cases where the motives are not honest are avoided, and b) how we would continue this indefinitely, and c) why the current system doesn't achieve this?
//"Legalising euthanasia, instead, tips the balance away from investigation -- "innocent until proven guilty"."
Not so.//
Not so, if you have the right regulatory framework. While I'm not saying you should be legislator, I do think that it's important to explain why legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide is the better thing to do practically, as well as just ideally. The world is not ideal; any system for state-sanctioned killing could well be abused. And such a system could, potentially, lead to unintended and tragic consequences, even if they would be very rare.
//I want us as a society to recognise instead that there are individuals who are at the limits of medical care but have a terminal sentence, with no prospect of cure, who live in pain or anguish or complete lack of any dignity and just want to end it. We should respect their wishes...//
At no point, I hope, have I argued against such cases being allowed that facility, even though I am obviously uncomfortable with the thought of making that decision. The point is that not all cases would be such, and how do we ensure that only such cases are allowed. You've not really explained why this isn't what happens currently, and why we need to legalise it. Instead, apparently, just sticking to the moral issue. That is not what I am arguing about -- the practicalities are the important things here.
So, in practice, how would you ensure that a) all cases where the motives are not honest are avoided, and b) how we would continue this indefinitely, and c) why the current system doesn't achieve this?
"So, in practice, how would you ensure that a) all cases where the motives are not honest are avoided, and b) how we would continue this indefinitely, and c) why the current system doesn't achieve this?
"
The current system does not achieve this because it does not properly allow for an individuals desires and wishes to be properly tested in advance of physician aided termination or withdrawal of care.
We are also talking about a highly specific set of circumstances here. The individuals concerned will have to make an application to a court or tribunal, on more than one occasion and over a period of time, to demonstrate true intent and lack of coercion.
In those cases, the circumstances surrounding the individuals desire to end their life will be fully explored, and explicit consent will have to be given - not just a living will or passive consent, or a family member passing on a supposedly expressed wish, or anything like that. What dishonest motive can you imagine that would effectively pass such a scrutiny? Any such system would seek a 2nd or 3rd informed medical opinion on both the prognosis and palliation. Full and frank discussion with a pyschologist / councillor to determine lucidity, state of mind and whether unseemly pressure is being applied. If you were a family member or friend wishing to bump someone off for material gain, unless you are trying to craft a best-seller or film, the very last thing you would wish to do would allow yourself to become part of such a detailed scrutiny.
So - we are talking about patients who are demonstrably compos mentis,fully conversant of their prognosis and up to date with what palliation might offer them who have explicitly expressed their wish as a free and uncoerced adult individual, and who have also explicitly given their consent - we are not talking about some elderly relative suffering dementia, or in a coma, or unable to participate in the process or anything like that.
The concern over an extension of the remit for state-sanctioned or physician- assisted dying is a genuine one, but it is not something that is an inevitable consequence. The Netherlands probably offers us the best example of the type of legal framework and assisted dying programme that I can think of. Such cases in the Netherlands are only sanctioned in cases of "hopeless and unbearable" suffering.
http://
You will note from the article that there is a lobby group in the Netherlands who are advocating the right to euthanasia for anyone over 70 who "feel tired of life". Now widening the remit of any state-sanctioned process to include such circumstances as being "tired of life" would be a step too far, and I seriously doubt they will be able to generate a sufficiency of support to effect any change in the law.
"
The current system does not achieve this because it does not properly allow for an individuals desires and wishes to be properly tested in advance of physician aided termination or withdrawal of care.
We are also talking about a highly specific set of circumstances here. The individuals concerned will have to make an application to a court or tribunal, on more than one occasion and over a period of time, to demonstrate true intent and lack of coercion.
In those cases, the circumstances surrounding the individuals desire to end their life will be fully explored, and explicit consent will have to be given - not just a living will or passive consent, or a family member passing on a supposedly expressed wish, or anything like that. What dishonest motive can you imagine that would effectively pass such a scrutiny? Any such system would seek a 2nd or 3rd informed medical opinion on both the prognosis and palliation. Full and frank discussion with a pyschologist / councillor to determine lucidity, state of mind and whether unseemly pressure is being applied. If you were a family member or friend wishing to bump someone off for material gain, unless you are trying to craft a best-seller or film, the very last thing you would wish to do would allow yourself to become part of such a detailed scrutiny.
So - we are talking about patients who are demonstrably compos mentis,fully conversant of their prognosis and up to date with what palliation might offer them who have explicitly expressed their wish as a free and uncoerced adult individual, and who have also explicitly given their consent - we are not talking about some elderly relative suffering dementia, or in a coma, or unable to participate in the process or anything like that.
The concern over an extension of the remit for state-sanctioned or physician- assisted dying is a genuine one, but it is not something that is an inevitable consequence. The Netherlands probably offers us the best example of the type of legal framework and assisted dying programme that I can think of. Such cases in the Netherlands are only sanctioned in cases of "hopeless and unbearable" suffering.
http://
You will note from the article that there is a lobby group in the Netherlands who are advocating the right to euthanasia for anyone over 70 who "feel tired of life". Now widening the remit of any state-sanctioned process to include such circumstances as being "tired of life" would be a step too far, and I seriously doubt they will be able to generate a sufficiency of support to effect any change in the law.
Thanks for the reply, LG, and I hope you've found this a reasoned and informed debate, even if we do disagree. The results of Paul Lamb's and "Martin's" appeals this week may well be very important.
http://
http://
