A Duty To Die? - Page 15

**Chris** · 12-09-2015, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Surveys of the public over a reasonable period seem to disagree.[COLOR="Silver"]

If that was the only criterion, we'd still be sending people to the gallows.

Ignitionnet · 12-09-2015, 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If that was the only criterion, we'd still be sending people to the gallows.

It isn't; just pointing out that your claim that it is one generation agitating for what they want, when they want it isn't accurate. There's apparently support for this across all age groups, the entire mainstream political spectrum, and nearly all races and faiths.

TheDaddy · 13-09-2015, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You presumably mean as hasn't happened with legalised abortion in the 48 years since the Abortion Act of 1967 was passed - conditions actually being made more strict by a change from a limit of 28 weeks to 24?

On the contrary conditions now mean babies can survive at 24 weeks and earlier, that's the reason for the law change. Seems like a bit of a straw man to try and include that legislation into the argument whilst across the channel in Holland and a few miles further Switzerland the laws and the safe guards for actual relevant right to die are being ignored.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...o-survive.html

Ignitionnet · 13-09-2015, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

On the contrary conditions now mean babies can survive at 24 weeks and earlier, that's the reason for the law change. Seems like a bit of a straw man to try and include that legislation into the argument whilst across the channel in Holland and a few miles further Switzerland the laws and the safe guards for actual relevant right to die are being ignored.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...o-survive.html

A controversial UK law that has not had safeguards loosened, but instead has had them strengthened in response to the evidence, seems a perfectly reasonable comparison to me. Far more reasonable than mistakes made in other countries which you would hope we would learn from rather than emulate.

It's all academic anyway. A few groups, some with long and not especially distinguished histories of wanting to control how the rest of the country lives, told the MPs to jump and they responded asking how high.

TheDaddy · 02-12-2015, 07:09

Exactly the situation we should be avoiding imo

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/u...cle4629751.ece

rogerdraig · 02-12-2015, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

A controversial UK law that has not had safeguards loosened, but instead has had them strengthened in response to the evidence, seems a perfectly reasonable comparison to me. Far more reasonable than mistakes made in other countries which you would hope we would learn from rather than emulate.

It's all academic anyway. A few groups, some with long and not especially distinguished histories of wanting to control how the rest of the country lives, told the MPs to jump and they responded asking how high.

that's slightly inaccurate in that yes the time limit has reduced but the access to it has been made easier and easier with the 2 doctor rule now a mere formality with no real check by second doctor in most cases

and any euthanasia law would go the same way no mater what safeguards you try to put in they will slide

the way it stands at the moment the vast majority of the country who wish to die can do so

to alter it so a very few who cant because of a illness / disability does not seem to me to be for the good of all as far more will be put at risk of persuasion and or direct deception by any such law

TheDaddy · 11-05-2016, 07:49

Shocking, so much life left to live and hopefully get over her traumatic past, to late now, you can only hope her abusers suffer for this tragedy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uncurable.html

rogerdraig · 11-05-2016, 19:08

i wonder how many mentally ill people could be persuaded to follow suit .

safeguards (sigh)

TheDaddy · 21-05-2018, 06:02

Guernsey reject right to die proposals, something very positive did come out of it that I'm sure all will agree on, the palliative care on the island will be improved. I find it odd that it took such proposals for it to be improved though, puts me in mind of organ donation, it's being made opt out rather than opt in with out enough effort having been made to encourage us to do it voluntarily, one ad campaign every few years was never going to be enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-euro...rnsey-44153575

OLD BOY · 21-05-2018, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If that was the only criterion, we'd still be sending people to the gallows.

The majority would say 'And what's wrong with that?'

Better than caging a murderer for a few years only to let them out again amongst the population.

The minority of the population who do not want to see murderers pay the ultimate penalty seem to value the lives of these dreadful people above the lives of the rest of us.

---------- Post added at 08:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogerdraig

i wonder how many mentally ill people could be persuaded to follow suit .

safeguards (sigh)

Many go on to take their own lives. A sad fact.

TheDaddy · 21-05-2018, 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The minority of the population who do not want to see
Many go on to take their own lives. A sad fact.

The point Roger was making is they may well not need to take their own lives, the state will take them for them as has already happened in Holland and Switzerland

OLD BOY · 21-05-2018, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The point Roger was making is they may well not need to take their own lives, the state will take them for them as has already happened in Holland and Switzerland

Same thing really, but more humane than having to jump off a multi-storey car park or jump in a river.

It's not nice, but if it is their choice because they don't think their life is worth living, why make it difficult for them if treatment doesn't help them?

**Maggy** · 21-05-2018, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The majority would say 'And what's wrong with that?'

Better than caging a murderer for a few years only to let them out again amongst the population.

The minority of the population who do not want to see murderers pay the ultimate penalty seem to value the lives of these dreadful people above the lives of the rest of us.

---------- Post added at 08:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 ----------

Many go on to take their own lives. A sad fact.

That's because there were too many miscarriages of justice when we did hang murderers.I'd rather spare every one of them to make sure that we don't kill the innocent. Guildford Four and Maguire 7? Remember those cases?

OLD BOY · 21-05-2018, 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

That's because there were too many miscarriages of justice when we did hang murderers.I'd rather spare every one of them to make sure that we don't kill the innocent. Guildford Four and Maguire 7? Remember those cases?

That's true. But the solution is to actually apply the maxim of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. I have seen so many reports of cases where there has been cause for reasonable doubt, and yet people get banged up anyway.

TheDaddy · 21-05-2018, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Same thing really, but more humane than having to jump off a multi-storey car park or jump in a river.

It's not nice, but if it is their choice because they don't think their life is worth living, why make it difficult for them if treatment doesn't help them?

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