A Duty To Die?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't think it's the same thing at all, if they're suffering from a mental illness how can they make a decision so big whilst in the worst throws of that condition, it's not what was intended in Holland and Switzerland when it happened, that young, otherwise healthy people should die because of depression

The point I'm making is that whether you or I like it or not, if a person wants to take their own life then they will do it. Would you have them do this in a dignified way or the way they do it now?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point I'm making is that whether you or I like it or not, if a person wants to take their own life then they will do it. Would you have them do this in a dignified way or the way they do it now?

I'd rather they didn't do it at all but if it came to a choice I don't want the state legislating for it, the state putting down those of unsound judgement or incapable of making legal decisions is nothing short of disgusting imo and to dress is up by saying it's humane doesn't cut any ice with me at all

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'd rather they didn't do it at all but if it came to a choice I don't want the state legislating for it, the state putting down those of unsound judgement or incapable of making legal decisions is nothing short of disgusting imo and to dress is up by saying it's humane doesn't cut any ice with me at all

So much for individual rights, then. You would rather have someone pleading to be put out of their misery and being told they have to put up with it because you know better?

You need to ask which is the truly humane approach. We treat dogs better.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So much for individual rights, then. You would rather have someone pleading to be put out of their misery and being told they have to put up with it because you know better?

You need to ask which is the truly humane approach. We treat dogs better.

There are few human rights that are absolute, because when one person exercises their rights, it always has an impact on someone else, in one way or another. Our own rights must always therefore be balanced against those of others. Nobody lives in isolation.

The ‘right’ to die (which does not exist in law, and in my view is extremely hard to define satisfactorily in any ethical system) would impinge on others if it did exist, because it would create a set of legal procedures and, eventually, societal assumptions, that the vast majority of other people would then have to consider, as they reach end-of-life. As the ‘right’ to die does not presently exist, there is no duty, or pressure, to consider it. Simply allowing the possibility of a ‘right’ to die affects everyone else, quite profoundly.

Appeals to ‘individual rights’ of this kind often ultimately fail because what is dressed up as personal freedom is often merely a selfish failure to consider how one’s own choices affect others. Thankfully we still have a legal and legislative system in this country that is willing to take such considerations seriously and not to rush to confer ‘rights’ on everyone at the insistence of a vocal minority.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

There are few human rights that are absolute, because when one person exercises their rights, it always has an impact on someone else, in one way or another. Our own rights must always therefore be balanced against those of others. Nobody lives in isolation.

The ‘right’ to die (which does not exist in law, and in my view is extremely hard to define satisfactorily in any ethical system) would impinge on others if it did exist, because it would create a set of legal procedures and, eventually, societal assumptions, that the vast majority of other people would then have to consider, as they reach end-of-life. As the ‘right’ to die does not presently exist, there is no duty, or pressure, to consider it. Simply allowing the possibility of a ‘right’ to die affects everyone else, quite profoundly.

Appeals to ‘individual rights’ of this kind often ultimately fail because what is dressed up as personal freedom is often merely a selfish failure to consider how one’s own choices affect others. Thankfully we still have a legal and legislative system in this country that is willing to take such considerations seriously and not to rush to confer ‘rights’ on everyone at the insistence of a vocal minority.

So they can't be allowed to die if it's inconvenient to someone else or offends against their right not to be upset!

If anyone told me that and I had enough energy to do so, I'd get up and jump out of the window. They could clear up the mess.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So they can't be allowed to die if it's inconvenient to someone else or offends against their right not to be upset!

Errr, no, as I’ve already said, they can’t acquire the ‘right’ to die if delivering that right has too much of an impact on other people - that impact including such things as other people feeling obliged or pressured to exercise that ‘right’ themselves when the time comes. There are many other similar examples of how one person exercising their rights has a profound effect on someone else.

If anyone told me that and I had enough energy to do so, I'd get up and jump out of the window. They could clear up the mess.

Without any thought for the psychological effect your ‘mess’ might have on the attending emergency services or even passers-by. A very neat example of how focusing on ones own rights at the expense of other people can be a profoundly selfish thing to do. Thank you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Errr, no, as I’ve already said, they can’t acquire the ‘right’ to die if delivering that right has too much of an impact on other people - that impact including such things as other people feeling obliged or pressured to exercise that ‘right’ themselves when the time comes. There are many other similar examples of how one person exercising their rights has a profound effect on someone else.



Without any thought for the psychological effect your ‘mess’ might have on the attending emergency services or even passers-by. A very neat example of how focusing on ones own rights at the expense of other people can be a profoundly selfish thing to do. Thank you.

Which is why a person who wishes to die should be allowed to do so with dignity.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So much for individual rights, then. You would rather have someone pleading to be put out of their misery and being told they have to put up with it because you know better?

You need to ask which is the truly humane approach. We treat dogs better.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic, people who the state deems mentally unfit to look after themselves in your view should have this "right" and you call it humane, really and imo we don't treat dogs better we treat them worse unless that's your ultimate vision for this right, that someone else decides for you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic, people who the state deems mentally unfit to look after themselves in your view should have this "right" and you call it humane, really and imo we don't treat dogs better we treat them worse unless that's your ultimate vision for this right, that someone else decides for you.

If we had such a law, we would obviously have to put in place safeguards, but in cases where a person was suffering chronic mental illness with no prospect of getting better, was clearly miserable with no quality of life and wanted to end it, there seems to be little purpose in prolonging the agony for them.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If we had such a law, we would obviously have to put in place safeguards, but in cases where a person was suffering chronic mental illness with no prospect of getting better, was clearly miserable with no quality of life and wanted to end it, there seems to be little purpose in prolonging the agony for them.

These arguments have been made throughout this thread, I don't trust any safeguards not to be watered down over time and it's worth remembering that even in the middle ages we didn't kill the mentally ill, it can't be progress to start now especially when medical advances are being made every day

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

These arguments have been made throughout this thread, I don't trust any safeguards not to be watered down over time and it's worth remembering that even in the middle ages we didn't kill the mentally ill, it can't be progress to start now especially when medical advances are being made every day

Sometimes, it's the humane thing to do.

You can carry on repeating that but it doesn't mean you are right.

Obviously if such a law came to pass there would have to be stringent safeguards one of which would be that the person wanting to die was of sound mind and understood what they are asking for for those with serious mental deficiency something like three doctors confirming no quality of life be required. As for a right to die law impacting on others for those wanting to die it already does impact others knowing your loved one wants to die and knowing they may bodge it is a huge weight on others. There are many people suffering from incurable illness that have no way to end their suffering with dignity and certainty and will resort to extreme measures that doesn't always work and that's very damaging for loved one's also.

Life without a half decent quality of life shouldn't be prolonged for the benefit of those with sensibilities and reservations. Can it really be that hard to devise a system that allows suffering to be ended without blatant abuse.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Obviously if such a law came to pass there would have to be stringent safeguards one of which would be that the person wanting to die was of sound mind and understood what they are asking for for those with serious mental deficiency something like three doctors confirming no quality of life be required. As for a right to die law impacting on others for those wanting to die it already does impact others knowing your loved one wants to die and knowing they may bodge it is a huge weight on others. There are many people suffering from incurable illness that have no way to end their suffering with dignity and certainty and will resort to extreme measures that doesn't always work and that's very damaging for loved one's also.

Life without a half decent quality of life shouldn't be prolonged for the benefit of those with sensibilities and reservations. Can it really be that hard to devise a system that allows suffering to be ended without blatant abuse.

Correct. It just needs to be thought through. People who are against the idea are just dredging everything they can muster to rubbish the idea, but frankly, people should not have to suffer, and the do-gooders of this world need to get a grip and contemplate for a moment the unnecessary suffering they are causing by standing firmly against the idea.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Correct. It just needs to be thought through. People who are against the idea are just dredging everything they can muster to rubbish the idea, but frankly, people should not have to suffer, and the do-gooders of this world need to get a grip and contemplate for a moment the unnecessary suffering they are causing by standing firmly against the idea.

You need to get a grip, do gooders what a trite little saying, rather meaningless unless there's a group of people who are do baders and it doesn't just need thinking through as we already seen in this thread living wills manipulated, suicide kits being sent through the post, people going to dignitas fit and healthy, just feeling a bit old and tired, dignitas using doctors who have been struck of, dignitas ignoring patients distressed emotional states or mental health conditions, otherwise healthy blind people being eutanised, campaigners protesting that current legislation was being interpreted to liberally, suicide workshops being tried to set up, people being euthanized because they're lonely, police chiefs and doctors warning that they fear this will become a way of getting rid of people who are a burden and thats just of the top of my head, I'd suggest none of that is humane or right and can't be sorted by having a bit of a think about it, legislation in Holland and Belgium is already being routinely circumvented or manipulated.