A Duty To Die?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

I don't know what the restrictions if any are ,can you just rock up to the docs and ask to be put down in Belgium or are there restrictions stipulating the circumstances and conditions when this would be allowed

The stipulations are that you can make your wishes clear to a doctor and are suffering unbearable pain according to that doctor. Most of the 1133 euthanasia cases in 2011 in Belgium was for patients suffering from terminal cancer.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The stipulations are that you can make your wishes clear to a doctor and are suffering unbearable pain according to that doctor. Most of the 1133 euthanasia cases in 2011 in Belgium was for patients suffering from terminal cancer.

They have probably cited "unbearable emotional pain" which to me is not something to be euthanized for

[danielf]

They were unable to communicate being both deaf and increasingly blind. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. What's there to live for if you can't communicate.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

They were unable to communicate being both deaf and increasingly blind. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. What's there to live for if you can't communicate.

That's not what these laws should be there for imo and probably not what was intended in the countries that set them up which is why we should have no part in setting it up here.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's not what these laws should be there for imo and probably not what was intended in the countries that set them up which is why we should have no part in setting it up here.

The law's been looked at by a number of judges judge who have concluded that there is no reason to limit acceptable circumstances to unbearable physical suffering. The initial verdict was, as far as I can tell, appealed precisely with the intent to determine how the law should be interpreted. No attempts were made to legislate against this interpretation of the law, so it would seem the powers that be are content with it.

Personally, I don't see why unbearable emotional suffering (provided there is no or little prospect for improvement, as laid down in the law). The simple fact that it may be easier to imagine intolerable physical suffering does not alter the fact that emotional suffering may be just as intolerable.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

The law's been looked at by a number of judges judge who have concluded that there is no reason to limit acceptable circumstances to unbearable physical suffering. The initial verdict was, as far as I can tell, appealed precisely with the intent to determine how the law should be interpreted. No attempts were made to legislate against this interpretation of the law, so it would seem the powers that be are content with it.

Personally, I don't see why unbearable emotional suffering (provided there is no or little prospect for improvement, as laid down in the law). The simple fact that it may be easier to imagine intolerable physical suffering does not alter the fact that emotional suffering may be just as intolerable.

And there we have it, the laws been changed to allow circumstances other than those suffering from the most severe physical pain. It'll be changed again soon to allow children the same rights whose to say where opening this Pandora's box will end.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And there we have it, the laws been changed to allow circumstances other than those suffering from the most severe physical pain. It'll be changed again soon to allow children the same rights whose to say where opening this Pandora's box will end.

I think you're being overly dramatic here. Firstly, the law hasn't been changed. Only parliament can do that, and parliament didn't. The law has been interpreted by a judge in an area where it wasn't clear, and parliament hasn't moved to legislate against the new interpretation. In fact, reading more about it, the option of assisted suicide for emotional suffering was floated when the law was discussed in parliament. It was then pretty much decided to pass the law and leave the interpretation of this specific aspect to a judge, so parliament pretty much left the option open. Either way, the opening of this 'Pandora's box' will end where parliament wants it to. At present, the balance seems about right to me.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think you're being overly dramatic here. Firstly, the law hasn't been changed. Only parliament can do that, and parliament didn't. The law has been interpreted by a judge in an area where it wasn't clear, and parliament hasn't moved to legislate against the new interpretation. In fact, reading more about it, the option of assisted suicide for emotional suffering was floated when the law was discussed in parliament. It was then pretty much decided to pass the law and leave the interpretation of this specific aspect to a judge, so parliament pretty much left the option open. Either way, the opening of this 'Pandora's box' will end where parliament wants it to. At present, the balance seems about right to me.

Already in this thread we have examples of government advisors advocating licencing to "put people down", the mentally ill being assisted and suicide kits through the post so I don't think it melodramatic to suggest if we had such a law it'd be watered down in no time at all.

Mmmm - not being melodramatic, but using the phrase "put people down".

Some cognitive dissonance there....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Already in this thread we have examples of government advisors advocating licencing to "put people down", the mentally ill being assisted and suicide kits through the post so I don't think it melodramatic to suggest if we had such a law it'd be watered down in no time at all.

We've had this discussion before, and if I'm not mistaken we concluded that there is very little, if any, evidence of the law being abused as it is. You personally may not agree with what the law allows, but the reality is that there is no widespread abuse, nor is there a lot of watering down. It seems to me that your fears are largely unfounded.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

We've had this discussion before, and if I'm not mistaken we concluded that there is very little, if any, evidence of the law being abused as it is. You personally may not agree with what the law allows, but the reality is that there is no widespread abuse, nor is there a lot of watering down. It seems to me that your fears are largely unfounded.

The law in Belgium is changing to include children the law here has changed to regarding prosecution and you can guarantee there will be more changes to come each one shaving another layer of who is eligible as has already happened.

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Mmmm - not being melodramatic, but using the phrase "put people down".

Some cognitive dissonance there....

Not my phrase but baroness warnocks iirc

[TheDaddy]

One in five Dutch people think it ok to put healthy old people down, providing they're a bit tired of life of course...

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/u...re-euthanasia/

[TheDaddy]

The law we discussed.elsewhere in the thread re euthanising children has now.been passed by the Belgium parliament

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

[rogerdraig]

a certain leader would have been well impressed soon all those disabled / ill people who if they were well would obviously not want to be as they are, can soon, as this law slips be able to be put to rest and not be in pain or a burden to their families and their state

[TheDaddy]

A fine example of exactly what we should be trying to avoid imo

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-after-3382668