Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    No because it can be exploited for people to commit murder etc and pretend that it was a suicide.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    I meant that's true from my own beliefs. I guess I have to clear that up everytisme I say something.
    Ik a God couldn't stop you but what I want saying is that no child can be born with any random person walking down that street saying 'oh you're gonaa have a baby' and it happens there has to be another bigger and more powerful force that makes these things happen.
    yes i gathered that and you are entitled to have those beliefs however laws should not be based upon something as private as religion.
    And the 'bigger more powerful force' is a male and female reproducing together and as a result of gametes fusing and mitosis and maternal and paternal chromosomes and whatever else was in my a level revision guide boom a baby is born.
    There is nothing special or magical about life.
    we are just biomass designed to consume and be consumed only people like to give meaning to it in the form of gods and whatever else
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Inferred wrong.
    Anyways I've clarified myself now.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Clearly you'd say anything to save face. You meant what you said and are trying to get around it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    I don't understand if you have difficulty reading or something?
    You are literally asking me to spell it out for you. I have already told you twice that my post didn't mean those that kill themselves are murderers, so I don't understand your problem?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ad hominem attack? Nice. :rofl:

    I've asked you twice to give your opinion on whether or not someone who commits suicide is a murderer. Your refusal to give it confirms my original inference.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?

    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?
    Yes. People who are terminally ill, do not have long left to live, and will therefore suffer unnecessarily by being forced to go on living, should be given the choice to end their lives in a humane fashion. If we can turn off life-support machines and withdraw treatment, we should be able to actively end a life.

    People often claim that life is intrinsically valuable. This is false, but is quite intuitive because, for most of us, life is worth living. We anticipate future happiness and have future preferences and desires that we wish to be satisfied. For someone who is terminally ill, they have no such anticipation.

    Opponents of voluntary euthanasia might argue that legalising it may lead to a 'slippery slope', whereby the elderly are coerced into giving their consent to die, perhaps for financial gain.

    However, empirical evidence currently suggests that proponents of this argument are engaging in the slippery slope fallacy – a 2009 review study conducted by the Dutch government into the euthanasia system in the Netherlands concluded that “no slippery slope seems to have occurred”

    Similarly, another 2009 study found that “euthanasia practices have evolved in such a way that patients are more likely to talk about euthanasia than to die a euthanasia death”, suggesting that abuse of the system is rare.

    A 2010 study similarly concluded that, were assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia to be legalised in the United Kingdom, “there is no evidence that legalizing [it] will lead us down the slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia.”

    Opponents also often present a false dichotomy between palliative care and assisted suicide – it's perfectly possible to have widespread palliative care along with legal assisted suicide. In Oregon, for example, 86% of those who took the option of physician-assisted suicide in 2013 were already receiving palliative care. From 1998-2012, 90.5% of people were already receiving palliative care. Therefore, opponents of assisted suicide ignore the reality of the situation, because in many cases, no amount of palliative care can relieve the suffering and agony that many terminally ill people go through as they end their lives.

    Furthermore, making physician-assisted suicide legal provides comfort to people who know that the option is there if they need it. In Oregon, one in fifty patients talk to their doctor about it, and one in six talk with family members, suggesting that the availability of such an escape may be much more important to many patients than its actual use. Indeed, patients in Oregon are 100 times more likely to merely consider assisted suicide rather than actually follow through with it.

    In Oregon, it is required that patients are informed of all feasible alternatives including palliative care and other last-resort measures, demonstrating yet another benefit of legalising assisted suicide, namely that it ensures that doctors are not secretly assisting their patients in dying which is more dangerous than having the situation discussed out in the open with palliative care professionals.

    (Original post by BobSausage)
    No. What is it with TSR that homosexuality isn't acceptable, transgender-ism isn't acceptable but over half the people in this thread think assisted suicide is? Does it just exist to directly oppose my views? (In the past week alone I've seen at least 1 thread where there has been homophobia or transaphobia(? Is that even a word?).
    But, on assisted suicide. It is so open to abuse, and however many controls you put on it, someone will find a way through or a loop hole, e.g. bullying their gran into doing it to get the inheritance etc. It's stupidity. Except for the fact that the person has willingly put themselves in the position it is blatant murder. Not even 100 years ago you'd be hanged for murder yet now here we are considering that consensual murder should be legalised? How far has society fallen?.
    But in my opinion murder is murder, now matter how you sugar coat it, it is still murder and should be treated as such.
    I don't oppose homosexuality or transgenderism (though TSR is admittedly a bit regressive on these and other issues), incidentally for the same reasons I support physician-assisted suicide: people should, when it doesn't harm anyone else, be given the choice about what to do in their lives or with their lives.

    On utilitarian grounds, homosexuals and transgender people gain a lot of happiness by being allowed to do what they want in their lives, and people who are suffering needlessly at the end of their lives are suffering a lot by not being allowed to do what they want to their lives - without any real benefit for others. And, as I've argued above, the experiences of a number of US states, as well as the Netherlands, all suggest that exploitation of the system and a slippery slope is unlikely, meaning that suffering is unlikely to increase in total as a result of the law.

    Calling physician-assisted suicide "murder" adds nothing to the argument. If it is defined as murder, then I would argue that murder is not always wrong. This may seem shocking, but that's only because our intuitions are aligned with everyday life, in which murder is wrong because it involves taking the life of a person who wants to go on living, or who will have a life that is worth living in the future, with future happiness.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Salamandastron)
    yes i gathered that and you are entitled to have those beliefs however laws should not be based upon something as private as religion.
    And the 'bigger more powerful force' is a male and female reproducing together and as a result of gametes fusing and mitosis and maternal and paternal chromosomes and whatever else was in my a level revision guide boom a baby is born.
    There is nothing special or magical about life.
    we are just biomass designed to consume and be consumed only people like to give meaning to it in the form of gods and whatever else
    I didn't say a law should be based upon it? And I understand that and if so how does a life die all of a sudden? Just wondering..
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    I didn't say a law should be based upon it? And I understand that and if so how does a life die all of a sudden? Just wondering..
    No but idk why religion is being brought into this tbh, if someone is religious and opposes it fine, dont have an assisted suicide but that shouldn't impact others who would potentially want one. However see how much use their 'god' is gonna be to them when they are elderly and in loads of pain but anyway i digress.
    Because it gets killed. If your heart is ripped out oxygen can't be transported around the body. If you have HIV which progresses to AIDs your T-Cells self destruct so your immune system becomes useless and can't fight off infection. If your leg is cut off you will bleed to death as no oxygen/glucose/waste products can be transported in your blood cos it is all over the floor not near your cells so you die etc etc
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't think it should. I fully believe in the sanctity of life-just because someone may have a reduced quality of life, it doesn't mean that their life is not as valuable or as worth living.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    No, I don't think it should. I fully believe in the sanctity of life-just because someone may have a reduced quality of life, it doesn't mean that their life is not as valuable or as worth living.
    Surely the living person should be the one who can make value-judgements about his or her life, and whether or not it is worth living? Is this not a classic case of people imposing their values on others - in this case, other people who are going through immense suffering at the end of their lives?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    I'll be the first to bring religion into this- only God can give and take away life.
    but murdering adulterers is okay
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EastGuava)
    but murdering adulterers is okay
    If you're going to pursue this line of argument: no it isn't!! Jesus said something like let who is without sin cast the first stone on an adulterous woman

    [see John 8]
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    If you're going to pursue this line of argument: no it isn't!! Jesus said something like let who is without sin cast the first stone on an adulterous woman
    I believe that reference to 'God' was a reference to 'Allah'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Surely the living person should be the one who can make value-judgements about his or her life, and whether or not it is worth living? Is this not a classic case of people imposing their values on others - in this case, other people who are going through immense suffering at the end of their lives?

    But if we were to say, as a country, that some lives are less worth living then that would have huge implications on the basic sense of identity of people living with chronic illnesses. What about relatives and friends of people using assisted suicide, following Utilitarian lines of thought? Those nearing death can quite easily end their lives by refusing treatment or food or water as it stands
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EastGuava)
    I believe that reference to 'God' was a reference to 'Allah'.
    Ah okay, different God, my bad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    But if we were to say, as a country, that some lives are less worth living then that would have huge implications on the basic sense of identity of people living with chronic illnesses. Those nearing death can quite easily end their lives by refusing treatment or food or water as it stands
    We're not saying that these lives aren't worth living, though. We're saying that people should be allowed to act on their determination that their lives aren't worth living.

    Some people nearing death or with severe disabilities simply haven't been able to end their lives - they've had to suffer on. In addition, death by starvation or extreme thirst is a terrible way to die, and decidedly inhumane. It's much more humane to actively and quickly and painlessly end the life of someone.

    If you believe that death by starvation is permissible, I don't see how actively killing a person is not permissible. In both cases, the outcome is the same and in both cases, the intention is the same. We can withhold treatment, withdraw life-support and fail to resuscitate someone if they don't want to be resuscitated - why can't we actively kill someone?

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    What about relatives and friends of people using assisted suicide, following Utilitarian lines of thought?
    What do you mean by this?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I remember a quote which said something along the lines of " it is perverse to place greater importance on maintaining our morality when this comes at the expense of others harm". Surely if it is in the best interest of the person to end their life then we have no right to deny them this? But obviously that doesn't take into account how AS may be abused in the future
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    We're not saying that these lives aren't worth living, though. We're saying that people should be allowed to act on their determination that their lives aren't worth living.
    But the act of issuing legislation would be to wholeheartedly agree with their beliefs. I wouldn't want to be part of a state that condoned the very lowest sense of self in its weakest members by law.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Some people nearing death or with severe disabilities simply haven't been able to end their lives - they've had to suffer on. In addition, death by starvation or extreme thirst is a terrible way to die, and decidedly inhumane. It's much more humane to actively and quickly and painlessly end the life of someone.
    If you believe that death by starvation is permissible, I don't see how actively killing a person is not permissible. In both cases, the outcome is the same and in both cases, the intention is the same
    There are inhumane qualities to either side of the debate from the outset. I would argue that it is much more inhumane to ideologically endorse the suicide of society's weakest and most vulnerable as a country[and bringing into question the worth of others with a chronically reduced quality of life] than leaving people the option of killing themselves by themselves with only their own backing. Thinking completely non-compassionately here: surely they would weigh up the short-term pains from food/fluid deprivation with the suffering that they believe they would endure should they continue to live and then decide for themselves?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    We can withhold treatment, withdraw life-support and fail to resuscitate someone if they don't want to be resuscitated - why can't we actively kill someone?
    Because actively killing someone is a lot different to the other examples you give-it's actively stopping their lives from running their full course as if they are not precious



    (Original post by viddy9)
    What do you mean by this?
    Utilitarianism is a branch of philosophy-seeking what causes maximum pleasure and the least amount of pain. I'm arguing that the ideological consequences of the passing of the act;, the fundamental heartache caused by the suicide of a loved one, plus the grieving process, are much worse than as things are at the moment
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes because a human owns their own life.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    But the act of issuing legislation would be to wholeheartedly agree with their beliefs. I wouldn't want to be part of a state that condoned the very lowest sense of self in its weakest members by law.
    Agree with their beliefs about themselves, yes. But there's no suggestion that other people in similar situations also have lives not worth living. It's up to each individual to make value-judgements about their own lives, not about the lives of anyone else. The state is merely giving these people the means to act upon these judgements.

    It's not endorsing physician-assisted suicide, it's about saying that it's permissible. We're not saying that society's weakest should all be put to death.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Thinking completely non-compassionately here: surely they would weigh up the short-term pains from food/fluid deprivation with the suffering that they believe they would endure should they continue to live and then decide for themselves?
    That's probably what some people do, but some people, again, aren't able to end their lives even in this fashion. And, we reduce net suffering if people don't even have to die by starvation or fluid deprivation.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Because actively killing someone is a lot different to the other examples you give-it's actively stopping their lives from running their full course as if they are not precious
    Why does a "full course" matter? People who have a heart attack would almost certainly die without intervention from doctors. They would have lived a full course because they would have naturally died without the intervention. Should we therefore not intervene to save people's lives? I just don't see why a full course matters, and I don't see how we can deem a life to be precious if the people actually living the life don't think it's precious.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Utilitarianism is a branch of philosophy-seeking what causes maximum pleasure and the least amount of pain. I'm arguing that the ideological consequences of the passing of the act;, the fundamental heartache caused by the suicide of a loved one, plus the grieving process, are much worse than as things are at the moment
    Yes, I'm a pretty strict Utilitarian, I was just wondering about your argument. As I've argued, there aren't any ideological consequences; in many cases, people have the support of their families; and the families would be suffering hardship anyway during the process. In contrast, many people, as I've documented above, are comforted by the fact that this option is available to them, even if they're much more likely to simply consider the option as opposed to taking the option.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think we have seen that by not having it in this Country we are pushing those most desperate for it out of our own care and into that of foreign health care systems. I suppose assisted dying, but as others have said the restrictions must be strict.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.