Thread: A Duty To Die?
View Single Post
Old 11-09-2015, 18:46   #207
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: A Duty To Die?

*Sigh*

Quote:
Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, welcomed the rejection of the legislation, saying the current law existed to protect those who were sick, elderly, depressed or disabled.

He said: "It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion, it acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing."
Quote:
Under the proposals, people with fewer than six months to live could have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, which they had to be able to take themselves. Two doctors and a High Court judge would have needed to approve each case.
I could understand if there were concerns about safeguards, in which case the obvious response would seem to be to table amendments to remedy the issues, however I'm approaching it from a logical point of view which is something our elected representatives appear to struggle with.

Usual BS from the SNP I see.

Quote:
"We should support letting people live every day of their lives till the end," she said, and she urged MPs to vote for "life and dignity, not death".
Indeed. Because few things say life and dignity quite like forcing a terminally ill person to spend their last months in agony enjoying the dignity of their body breaking down, right?

It's astounding. We euthanise animals even though we have advanced veterinary medicine as their quality of life becomes severely impaired, we consider this 'humane', however despite the majority of the population supporting it our elected representatives refuse to extend this to human beings. Death isn't a pleasant thought but it's going to happen to all of us, and whether we like it or not some of us will be unfortunate enough to know that we are going to die imminently, and may suffer horribly in the interim as our bodies fail us. At some point many of the terminal ill stop living even though they're still breathing and are simply dying, and for some each day will become increasingly wearisome. If it's clear there's no chance of recovery, and continuing to breathe is prolonging torment (it's a stretch to call it 'living') there should be a choice.

Base emotion, alongside some religious fervour, has managed to override humanity

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy View Post
This is what we want here? Struck of doctors sending depressed non terminally ill people to a clinic that loots the deads valuables and is happy to let people die in cars if there are no rooms available. Those safeguards they have in place are looking hollow which was my fear all along.
No it isn't, which is why it wasn't what was on the table. 2 doctors both of whom are not struck off and a High Court judge's agreement required. Not that it made any difference of course.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote