Do you think euthanasia should be legalised in the UK?

I think Ali G explains this the best

https://youtu.be/Ya_uJHdOtdc

Reply 21

BigYoSpeck

Original post by JMR2017

I mean, don't you have to analyse hypothetical cases when you are making a new law? :tongue:

Within reason. You wouldn't, for instance, suggest that messaging applications be banned because some twisted individuals use them to persuade people to commit suicide with them.

Like I said literally anything can be abused to cause harm. One single hypothetical objection doesn't mean that it isn't a humane service to offer, you've just raised a point of caution that will be needed to make sure that the decision is taken responsibility to prevent that scenario, not rule it out completely because it's possible.

Reply 22

Original post by Meany Pie

Sometimes there is nothing you can do, why continue to live if there is nothing left to live for?

I mean as technology and healthcare advances, we are starting to have more and more treatment options, and we are improving. The legalisation of euthanasia would mean there is a less need to improve, and therefore medicine would get better at a slower pace and the improvement would stagnate. Is that what you want?

Reply 23

EternalLight

2

Hmm this is a tricky one for me.

Even though it's not permissible in my religion to kill yourself, I do actually support the right to end your life if you want. I would always try to persuade someone out of taking their own life but I think the option should be there as long as they are mentally capable of making the decision and allow a suitable amount of time (several months at least) for the patient to think carefully about the decision they're about to make.

Reply 24

Original post by BigYoSpeck

Within reason. You wouldn't, for instance, suggest that messaging applications be banned because some twisted individuals use them to persuade people to commit suicide with them.

Like I said literally anything can be abused to cause harm. One single hypothetical objection doesn't mean that it isn't a humane service to offer, you've just raised a point of caution that will be needed to make sure that the decision is taken responsibility to prevent that scenario, not rule it out completely because it's possible.

I mean selfish families exist and vulnerable people exist. Man is often an evil animal, and the possibility of putting undue pressure on those who could live longer is always there...

Reply 25

Original post by JMR2017

I mean as technology and healthcare advances, we are starting to have more and more treatment options, and we are improving. The legalisation of euthanasia would mean there is a less need to improve, and therefore medicine would get better at a slower pace and the improvement would stagnate. Is that what you want?

The research will continue to to treat those that can be treated.

However there isn't a cure for everything. Terminal cancer is still terminal, dementia is not curable and many more have no real treatment. There are many who do not have a light at the end of the tunnel only suffering before death. We have the ability to cut out that suffering, so why don't we? We even afford this privilege to animals as a kindness but won't allow to people, how does that even make sense?

Reply 26

Original post by JMR2017

I mean as technology and healthcare advances, we are starting to have more and more treatment options, and we are improving. The legalisation of euthanasia would mean there is a less need to improve, and therefore medicine would get better at a slower pace and the improvement would stagnate. Is that what you want?

You do realise that a lot of conditions medicine is fighting to find treatments for are because people are living longer? There's only so far you can go against nature and euthanasia is an option for a lot of people suffering from these conditions of age. You then reach the point where the patient is only being kept alive for the benefit of others, for example the case of Charlie Gard.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 27

Original post by Meany Pie

The research will continue to to treat those that can be treated.

However there isn't a cure for everything. Terminal cancer is still terminal, dementia is not curable and many more have no real treatment. There are many who do not have a light at the end of the tunnel only suffering before death. We have the ability to cut out that suffering, so why don't we? We even afford this privilege to animals as a kindness but won't allow to people, how does that even make sense?

There is not a cure for everything but there could be. Humans have found cures for so many things. Euthanasia would remove the motivation.

Reply 28

BigYoSpeck

Original post by JMR2017

I mean selfish families exist and vulnerable people exist. Man is often an evil animal, and the possibility of putting undue pressure on those who could live longer is always there...

Absolutely, but like I said there is the possibility of literally anything being abused by an evil person to cause harm.

And you've raised a valid concern that adequate control measures should be in place.
* The person should be lucid and of sound enough mind to make the decision.
* A doctor should certify that their suffering is such that it prevents any quality of life and that there is no hope of their symptoms improving.
* Comprehensive councilling should be provided in the lead up to it which if any concerns are flagged such as the possibility of third parties coercing the patient then the treatment should be halted.

I wouldn't for a second suggest that it should be as easy to proceed with as getting a tattoo.

Reply 29

Original post by JMR2017

There is not a cure for everything but there could be. Humans have found cures for so many things. Euthanasia would remove the motivation.

Not in the foreseeable future. I am talking about people right now who are suffering in hospitals and care homes, some want to die because their quality of life is so poor there is no point continuing to suffer.

What would you say to those people?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 30

Original post by Meany Pie

Not in the foreseeable. I am talking about people right now who are suffering in hospitals and care homes, some want to die because their quality of life is so poor there is no point continuing to suffer.

What would you say to those people?

In many cases they are suffering because of a lack of investment and help for these people. I would call on the government to increase funding.

Reply 31

Original post by JMR2017

There is not a cure for everything but there could be. Humans have found cures for so many things. Euthanasia would remove the motivation.

What? No it wouldn't! People will still dedicate their loves to finding treatments. Just patients can decide to undergo treatment, palliative care, or can choose to die.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

Original post by JMR2017

In many cases they are suffering because of a lack of investment and help for these people. I would call on the government to increase funding.

You sound like you don't care about the desires of the individual.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Original post by Moonstruck16

What? No it wouldn't! People will still dedicate their loves to finding treatments. Just patients can decide to undergo treatment, palliative care, or can choose to die.

Posted from TSR Mobile

They would but there won't be as much need.

Reply 34

Original post by JMR2017

In many cases they are suffering because of a lack of investment and help for these people. I would call on the government to increase funding.

They are suffering because they are terminally ill.

When my grandfather was dying of cancer there was nothing more that could be done to save him, it was terminal. But he had to suffer while the nurses made it "more comfortable". He could barely eat, rarely slept and could hardly even get out of bed to move around. He wanted to die and end the suffering.

Now tell me, how was more funding going to help him?

Reply 35

Original post by Meany Pie

They are suffering because they are terminally ill.

When my grandfather was dying of cancer there was nothing more that could be done to save him, it was terminal. But he had to suffer while the nurses made it "more comfortable". He could barely eat, rarely slept and could hardly even get out of bed to move around. He wanted to die and end the suffering.

Now tell me, how was more funding going to help him?

Well more funding could have helped the comforts of the environment he lived in as well as the mental health counselling etc. There are many things.

Reply 36

Original post by JMR2017

Well more funding could have helped the comforts of the environment he lived in as well as the mental health counselling etc. There are many things.

But he would still be suffering with a low quality of life, no amount of comforts or counselling would change that.

Reply 37

BigYoSpeck

Original post by JMR2017

Well more funding could have helped the comforts of the environment he lived in as well as the mental health counselling etc. There are many things.

There are some people who just don't want these comforts. People that have come to terms with their own inevitable demise, who want to end things in a peaceful, dignified manner and not just manage the pain to the point at which they aren't able to enjoy any quality of life during their final days.

Me personally I want to leave this world kicking and screaming, raging against the dying of the light. But I respect the wishes of those who have no fight left in them and just seek a dignified and peaceful end to their suffering.

Reply 38

Original post by JMR2017

They would but there won't be as much need.

So you want people to live longer, even though they don't want to, so they can be made to take treatments they don't want to have, to help promote the research of treatments which won't be curative in many cases?

Just because there isn't need (and this is a load of BS anyway) doesn't mean research won't happen. Good grief.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 39