Assisted Dying, Here's Where It Leads.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/depressed-and-desperate-to-die-has-assisted-dying-in-canada-crossed-the-line-13258336

"But although Canada's MAiD was originally intended to be used in exceptional circumstances, repeated challenges have extended the programme to include disability. " - remind you of anything?

[Ellipsis]

It reminds me a lot of the debate before and after the Abortion Act 1967 (and the current debate on Roe v Wade in the USA at present).  One's about start of life, the other's about end of life, one's about "life", the other's about "choice" ... in the end, I think if somebody doesn't want an abortion, it is very important that it is not forced upon them; and likewise, if somebody doesn't want assisting dying, it is very important that it is not forced upon them; but for those that do want it, in both cases, it should be their prerogative.

[Untitled]

interesting comparison ellipsis. i hadn't thought of it like that. 

[Ellipsis]

Thanks, Untitled.

[davebro3]

A it stands if you have the means to go abroad (Dignitas?) it's one law for the rich and another for the poor isn't it?

[davebro3]

As it stands....

[ladybirder]

Sensible as ever Ellipsis.

[Rosetta]

Elipsis, I think the analogy with the abortion debate and assisted dying would be strongly opposed by the anti abortionists who would likely argue that the foetus has no choice in the matter, and this is from me who is pro-cchoice

[Ellipsis]

> the foetus has no choice in the matter

The analogy is not about the foetus, it's about the adult's choices in both scenarios. A terminally ill pregnant woman can legally choose to abort a foetus, but can't legally be assisted to kill herself at a time and a place of her own choice - when both decisions are about what's best for the woman.

If anything, an anti-abortionist might think it would be easier to kill your own legally than another life easily. And let's not forget that killing yourself, or having an abortion, is not impossible even when it's illegal, but it is a lot more risky and brutal.

[Rosetta]

Elipsis, I  don't wish to sidetrack this thread, but your example  of a terminally ill pregnant woman  having an assisted death, whilst being  a fair point, is not typical of the majority of abortions where by and large the only resultant death is that of the foetus, and again I am approaching this from the stand point of a pro-choice supporter

[Ellipsis]

OK two women - friends, sisters, twins or, if you like, don't even know each other. One is pregnant and wants an abortion, the other has a terminal illness and wants assistance in dying - both in their respective personal best interests. One has the choice, legally, the other does not. Is that equitable?

[davebro3]

what you on about? who brought abortion into this?

[ToraToraTora]

stop conflating this with abortion ellipsis, no equivalence.

[Ellipsis]

You're wrong, Tora, but thanks for opinion. 😉

[ToraToraTora]

How can deciding to abort a new life a woman has control of be equivalent to ending her own? Illogical. I can see the parallel you are attempting but there is no equivalence. If you want to talk about abortion start your own thread, do not hijack mine.

[Ellipsis]

> How can deciding to abort a new life a woman has control of be equivalent to ending her own?

It's not about the new life, it's about difficult, personal choices, as I said at 15:58 Mon 25th Nov 2024. I'll leave it there, as it's your thread.

[Rosetta]

I don' object to the concept of assisted dying Elipsis, I just didnt accept your arguement at 15.58, they are not the same thing.

assisted dying is a very complicated issue which needs a lot of thought and debate and should not be rushed through Parliament, I watched a programme with Pru Leith and her son, an MP, of the Canadian experience. Pru was very much for, her son against. There were a lot of concerns expressed by some Canadians interviwed, and the biggest factor that came across to me was the need to be careful of the with the legislation and the need for strong safeguards.

I have known some children who would sell their parents down the river for a sixpence, the legislation and processes have to safeguard the vulnerable as well as recognising the rights of the individual  to know when and how they want to die. My fear is that this should not be rushed, certainly not for political expedience to deflect attention from other political and economic problems. Why now? Maybe we should look at other countries other than just Canada, eg the Netherlands have had legislation for several years , what is their frame work and experience like

[Rosetta]

sorry TTT, I am partially responsible for sidetracking your thread

[jourdain2]

I am very against this proposal - except for when life has become intolerable through pain and mercy is being administered.

My poor bro-in-law died, horribly, from asbestosis about a year ago.  He was begging my sister and his brother to 'finish him off' in the last 2 weeks.  They dared not, although my sister did slip in extra morphine when she felt she could. Can you imagine how they felt? Until then, he wanted to be involved in his family's life.

He had a pacemaker for his heart. In the last few days his GP arrived - and removed it under local anaesthetic, stitching him up neatly ...... if Bro-in-law died, it would keep 'bringing him back to life'. Imagine that, please.

Those last 2 weeks were inhumane and doctors should be free to increase doses of morphine to keep the pain at bay.

That is as far as it goes so far as I am concerned. 

Strict laws need to be applied. 6 months, as proposed is far too lax. In extremis only and to save intolerable pain i.m.o..

[ToraToraTora]

not at all Rosetta, I agree with your assessment.