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

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    But at the same time, we're not exactly issuing laws saying that it is fine for the healthy to kill themselves. This inevitably sets up an ideological hierarchy of human worth whereby the weak and vulnerable even have help and encouragement in dying as though it is right for them to destroy their precious lives. The weakest already have the means to die by themselves, should they wish, through food or water deprivation, but what you're proposing is that the state formally condone this process by law which is a bit superfluous and reductive to those living a poor quality of life.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Under what circumstance could someone not refuse food or water or treatment? As I have said before, surely the short-term suffering induced by fluid/food deprivation is far outweighed by the advantages of not having to live any more for people desperate to die? And surely at least with this option, we don't have to agree with people committing suicide as a country.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    "Full course" matters because life is sacred, and wherever possible, I think, we should try to preserve life which is why I cannot agree with assisted suicide. It is up to an individual if they want to kill themselves, and they have the means to do this anyway without assisted suicide, but I don't think that the state should have to support suicide, contravening the sanctity of human life and the
    Hippocratic oath.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    The petition's a question?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    That doesn't make you any less of a murderer.
    I'll be the first to bring religion into this- only God can give and take away life.
    Why can't God, being merciful, act through people?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The petition's a question?
    Yeah...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Yeah...
    That's going to make the question 'Do you agree on this petition?' (which is what MPs will vote on) a bit awkward.

    Welcome to the party btw.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That's going to make the question 'Do you agree on this petition?' (which is what MPs will vote on) a bit awkward.

    Welcome to the party btw.
    Oops, sorry... It got accepted as that, I wasn't sure if the person accepting would change it 😶
    Thank you, and should I change the question at the beginning of the thread? 😁
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    It should. Although, I can where the against side is coming from, unfortunately, most are their arguments are religious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it should be legalized because people are responsible for their own lives. It goes without saying that people cant just walk into a clinic and say "please kill me" - obviously.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    No, too much scope for it to be 'misused'
    I agree. I fear a slippery slope and elderly relatives with money being pressured or bullied by their younger family members.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Oops, sorry... It got accepted as that, I wasn't sure if the person accepting would change it 😶
    Thank you, and should I change the question at the beginning of the thread? 😁
    I'm sure the Speaker will be flexible. I presume we will count the 'Aye' votes as for assisted dying and the 'No' votes as against. But even if this passes it will still require legislation. Now that you've joined TSR Labour feel free to start hashing out the legislation that'll actually legalise assisted dying with us (assuming that you're in favour). Until you're an MP you'll need another MP to second or a party to sponsor any bills you write.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'm sure the Speaker will be flexible. I presume we will count the 'Aye' votes as for assisted dying and the 'No' votes as against. But even if this passes it will still require legislation. Now that you've joined TSR Labour feel free to start hashing out the legislation that'll actually legalise assisted dying with us (assuming that you're in favour). Until you're an MP you'll need another MP to second or a party to sponsor any bills you write.
    Oh ok, what does hashing out legislation mean? I'm sorry about this 😑 Yes I'm in favour as long as it's under strict conditions 👍🏼 could you please explain the last part please 👌🏼
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Oh ok, what does hashing out legislation mean? I'm sorry about this 😑 Yes I'm in favour as long as it's under strict conditions 👍🏼 could you please explain the last part please 👌🏼
    I never knew you were in the mHoC. Are you new as well?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    I never knew you were in the mHoC. Are you new as well?
    Yup I'm a newbie are you new too? ☺️
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Oh ok, what does hashing out legislation mean? I'm sorry about this 😑 Yes I'm in favour as long as it's under strict conditions 👍🏼 could you please explain the last part please 👌🏼
    I just mean drafting the new laws that would be needed to actually fulfill your aims. If you check the stickied threads in our sub-forum you'll find examples of bills to draw inspiration from. I'd be happy to help out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Yup I'm a newbie are you new too? ☺️
    Yeah, somewhat. Ive read through many of the posts though. (Bills, petitions etc). Also learning the mHoC formalities and rules atm.

    (+ working on a bill with some people)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    But at the same time, we're not exactly issuing laws saying that it is fine for the healthy to kill themselves. This inevitably sets up an ideological hierarchy of human worth whereby the weak and vulnerable even have help and encouragement in dying as though it is right for them to destroy their precious lives. The weakest already have the means to die by themselves, should they wish, through food or water deprivation, but what you're proposing is that the state formally condone this process by law which is a bit superfluous and reductive to those living a poor quality of life.
    Healthy people already have the means to kill themselves swiftly and painlessly. In addition, in the Netherlands, it is permissible for people without terminal illnesses or severe disabilities to seek physician-assisted suicide, and it's an open system in which people make informed, considered decisions, so I wouldn't be completely averse to allowing for voluntary euthanasia for everyone who feels that they need it.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Under what circumstance could someone not refuse food or water or treatment? As I have said before, surely the short-term suffering induced by fluid/food deprivation is far outweighed by the advantages of not having to live any more for people desperate to die? And surely at least with this option, we don't have to agree with people committing suicide as a country.
    The lack of any suffering with an active, painless death is far more advantageous than starving yourself to death.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    "Full course" matters because life is sacred, and wherever possible, I think, we should try to preserve life which is why I cannot agree with assisted suicide. It is up to an individual if they want to kill themselves, and they have the means to do this anyway without assisted suicide, but I don't think that the state should have to support suicide, contravening the sanctity of human life and the
    Hippocratic oath.
    If full course mattered, then we wouldn't save lives. Your real objection seems to be that life is sacred, which I just dispute: when did you make this cosmic discovery, and why haven't I been informed of life's sacredness? (Anyway, don't want to get into a religious debate.) And, many doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath anymore, nor is such an oath set in stone. Plus, doctors are doing their patients harm by prolonging their suffering if they don't assist them in suicide.

    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I agree. I fear a slippery slope and elderly relatives with money being pressured or bullied by their younger family members.
    Such fears are unwarranted, thus you're falling prey to 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.”

    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.

    The whole of the West Coast of the United States, as well as Vermont, now permits physician-assisted suicide. So do the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Switzerland. As more and more countries find their experiences perfectly fine, more and more countries will adopt it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Oops, sorry... It got accepted as that, I wasn't sure if the person accepting would change it 😶
    Thank you, and should I change the question at the beginning of the thread? 😁
    There's no person that accepts it when you use the tool – it just posts it for you and hopes that I find it.

    If you want to edit the petition to something that states an opinion one way or the other you are welcome to do so, otherwise I can attach a Speaker's note to it when it goes to vote indicating that Aye votes are in favour of assisted dying and No votes are against.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Yeah, somewhat. Ive read through many of the posts though. (Bills, petitions etc). Also learning the mHoC formalities and rules atm.

    (+ working on a bill with some people)
    Oh cool nice to meet you and hope your having a great time 👍🏼
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I just mean drafting the new laws that would be needed to actually fulfill your aims. If you check the stickied threads in our sub-forum you'll find examples of bills to draw inspiration from. I'd be happy to help out.
    Oh okay, I'll let you know ☺️
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    There's no person that accepts it when you use the tool – it just posts it for you and hopes that I find it.

    If you want to edit the petition to something that states an opinion one way or the other you are welcome to do so, otherwise I can attach a Speaker's note to it when it goes to vote indicating that Aye votes are in favour of assisted dying and No votes are against.
    Oh it said it was being looked at but oh well lol 👍🏼 and I think I'll leave it ☺️
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.