Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
They're not do able, the safe guards already in place have been abused over and over as referenced in this thread already. The mentally ill killed, the healthy killed, the young killed etc etc etc and speaking of dignity how much dignity is there in having your remains tossed in a lake.
|
Ridiculous last phrase, implying that assisted suicide somehow equates to mistreatment of a corpse.
Firstly I care about dignity for the living more than for the dead. All evidence points to that we won't have any idea what happens to our bodies after death for a really simple reason - we'll be dead. Any care for the body is more about looking after those who are still alive, their feelings, their concerns, and their emotions. The body is an empty shell that looks like someone they used to know but has now passed. It is no more the person who died than a shred of skin from that person is.
There are no perfect safeguards when things are prone to abuse - none. Like pretty much everything else there's a cost:benefit analysis there and the evidence, sorry if I keep using that word, from countries that have legalised assisted euthanasia and have robust safeguards is that the benefits outweigh the costs.
I think you're being paranoid and opposing assisted euthanasia for the wrong reasons. If there are amendments that go down the slippery slope of involuntary euthanasia or weaken safeguards then yes, absolutely, those should be opposed.
Merely permitting assisted euthanasia however is humane, compassionate, and will bring comfort to those who are dying, knowing that they can end their lives in the manner they see fit at the time they see fit, rather than lingering on in doubt and pain, gradually losing their faculties until finally their body can no longer sustain them.