Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Even where suicide is rational it's very difficult to do it on one's own.
    Perhaps because when people declare it rational it rarely is? But if you're too weak willed to carry through you don't deserve the relief. I mean, biology is even kind enough to give you a pretty clear line to follow with your razor blade, and all you need is a bottle of your spirit of choice and a couple of packs of paracetamol

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    But if someone wants to die, it's just ridiculous that they either have to do it themselves ot go to Switzerland.
    It's ridiculous for somebody to want to legitimately kill themselves in all but a few scenarios, if they're unwilling to do either then they can't call themselves serious.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    An often-overlooked point about euthanasia is that people can already do it. It's legal in several countries, all that's really needed is the money to travel to Switzerland or somewhere else where it's available. By banning it here, you're simply banning it for poorer people - and if you're not willing to extend the law to prevent someone who can afford it from flying to Dignitas, you're setting something of a double standard by forbidding it for only those who can't.

    It's very similar to the debate over abortion in Ireland, anyone with a bit of money can simply travel to England. Only the poorest are really being denied.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?
    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?
    So basically, it's in the title, currently assisted suicide is illegal in the UK but what is your opinion? Should it be legalised and why? And if it shouldn't then why not? Interested in your opinion?

    Assisted suicide is the act of deliberately assisting or encouraging another person to kill themselves.


    Nope, definatly not
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Perhaps because when people declare it rational it rarely is? But if you're too weak willed to carry through you don't deserve the relief. I mean, biology is even kind enough to give you a pretty clear line to follow with your razor blade, and all you need is a bottle of your spirit of choice and a couple of packs of paracetamol
    Meh, I'd guess it's rational for a pretty large part of the population, because social mobility is a lie.

    Saying you 'don't deserve relief' is silly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Killing someone else is murder though? I thought everyone knew that...?
    Show me where I said killing yourself = murderer

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually, not necessarily. Murder, by definition, is the unlawful and premeditated killing of another human. A doctor who aided legalised euthanasia would, therefore, not be a murderer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Suicide is absolutely not painless for the majority of participants in this country who do not own a gun. Suppose you're jumping off a building? The impact, though momentary, would be intensely painful. Hanging yourself is also painful. For the terminally ill, there's not just the option of refusing food.water/treatment, they could overdose if they wanted to which is a simple error that could easily happen


    (Original post by viddy9)
    The lack of any suffering with an active, painless death is far more advantageous than starving yourself to death.
    In terms of what is least bad:
    Dying painfully<continuing to live a life they personally no longer want to live+ the country supporting certain people killing themselves
    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    Okay, admittedly "full course " was not the most apt phrase for me to use. What I meant was not actively ending someone's precious life. The Hippocratic oath was not the fulcrum of my argument
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    No. I agree with richpanda
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    What I meant was not actively ending someone's precious life. The Hippocratic oath was not the fulcrum of my argument
    There are two main issues here: sanctity of life, and the state supporting people's choices to kill themselves painlessly. Your inequality is flawed, because people won't be continuing to live lives that they don't believe are worth living. With assisted suicide, we have people painlessly dying if they believe that their lives won't be worth living, and we also have people who stay alive if they believe that the benefits of staying alive outweigh painlessly dying.

    The government supporting people's choices doesn't have a net-negative effect on society, as I've argued. While some people may become distressed and may irrationally believe that their lives are worth less simply because others in similar situations believe that their personal lives aren't worth living, this is outweighed by the following:

    * There is no evidence of a slippery slope elsewhere.
    * 82% of the British public supports physician-assisted suicide, suggesting that many people with chronic illnesses also support it and aren't distressed by the idea of it. Indeed, these people are often the most vocal advocates of such a law.
    * Many people are comforted by the option being available to them, even if they don't take it.
    * Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is safer, because discussions are had out in the open. Right now, individual doctors can simply assisted their patients to commit suicide in secret.

    Your remaining argument (and I think this is your true objection, not the important utilitarian objections you've given above) is the sanctity of human life, for which there is no evidence. Also, if life were sacred, then you would also oppose withdrawing treatment, withdrawing life-support, food deprivation, individual suicides, and so on, because otherwise a life would be taken, just as you support other artificial means of keeping life prolonged, such as heart surgery and aspirin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?
    Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK?
    So basically, it's in the title, currently assisted suicide is illegal in the UK but what is your opinion? Should it be legalised and why? And if it shouldn't then why not? Interested in your opinion?

    Assisted suicide is the act of deliberately assisting or encouraging another person to kill themselves.


    If a baby can be aborted at up to 24 weeks old, and that action can be justified by statements such as ‘It doesn’t have a memory yet’, ‘it’s in pain’, ‘it isn’t independent anyway so it isn’t a human as such’, why do we prohibit the dying and the elderly from the same end, in spite of their suffering?

    I work in a dementia care home and I would never NEVER (I'm shouting) want my family to go through the same suffering. I'm often asked to help kill residents, like wtf is up with our system that there are suicidal, lonely, mentally ill elderly people who aren't allowed to die peacefully!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacksiggs)
    If a baby can be aborted at up to 24 weeks old, and that action can be justified by statements such as ‘It doesn’t have a memory yet’, ‘it’s in pain’, ‘it isn’t independent anyway so it isn’t a human as such’, why do we prohibit the dying and the elderly from the same end, in spite of their suffering?

    I work in a dementia care home and I would never NEVER (I'm shouting) want my family to go through the same suffering. I'm often asked to help kill residents, like wtf is up with our system that there are suicidal, lonely, mentally ill elderly people who aren't allowed to die peacefully!
    Ikr I totally agree it will allow them to die peacefully and with dignity so no pain and no suffering 👍🏼
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's a difficult one, and I lean towards no
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Meh, I'd guess it's rational for a pretty large part of the population, because social mobility is a lie.

    Saying you 'don't deserve relief' is silly.
    If you see that as a rational position that explains a lot.

    And if you're that weak willed you deserve to suffer.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jacksiggs)
    If a baby can be aborted at up to 24 weeks old, and that action can be justified by statements such as ‘It doesn’t have a memory yet’, ‘it’s in pain’, ‘it isn’t independent anyway so it isn’t a human as such’, why do we prohibit the dying and the elderly from the same end, in spite of their suffering?

    I work in a dementia care home and I would never NEVER (I'm shouting) want my family to go through the same suffering. I'm often asked to help kill residents, like wtf is up with our system that there are suicidal, lonely, mentally ill elderly people who aren't allowed to die peacefully!
    I didn't realise the elderly were parasites, economically maybe, but not physically.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    No, too much scope for it to be 'misused'
    What if we had a system like Switzerland? It could stop people trying themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Your inequality is flawed, because people won't be continuing to live lives that they don't believe are worth living. With assisted suicide, we have people painlessly dying if they believe that their lives won't be worth living, and we also have people who stay alive if they believe that the benefits of staying alive outweigh painlessly dying.
    Just a slight point of contention here- the inequality was with respect to a painful death. For people who no longer want to live, any death would be better than continuing to live. For healthy people, suicide is not painless and as I have said before, an overdose would not be painful



    (Original post by viddy9)
    Your remaining argument (and I think this is your true objection, not the important utilitarian objections you've given above) is the sanctity of human life, for which there is no evidence. Also, if life were sacred, then you would also oppose withdrawing treatment, withdrawing life-support, food deprivation, individual suicides, and so on, because otherwise a life would be taken, just as you support other artificial means of keeping life prolonged, such as heart surgery and aspirin.
    Yes, from my first post my true objection has been the sanctity of human life.There can be no evidence for it as it's a belief. I don't have to oppose withdrawing treatment etc because I have this belief-people can make their own decisions but constitutionally I think it's wrong for us to support these choices [this proposed law might even make people who would not normally consider suicide, consider it]
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Just a slight point of contention here- the inequality was with respect to a painful death. For people who no longer want to live, any death would be better than continuing to live. For healthy people, suicide is not painless and as I have said before, an overdose would not be painful
    As I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to healthy people being given access to voluntary euthanasia either, and I agree that any death would be better than continuing to live, but a painless death would be better than just any death.

    (Original post by Jess_x)
    Yes, from my first post my true objection has been the sanctity of human life.There can be no evidence for it as it's a belief. I don't have to oppose withdrawing treatment etc because I have this belief-people can make their own decisions but constitutionally I think it's wrong for us to support these choices [this proposed law might even make people who would not normally consider suicide, consider it]
    Withdrawing treatment, failing to resuscitate people and turning off life-support machines are examples of policies which constitutionally support people's choices to end their lives, which you believe are sacred.

    There's not really room for much debate on the sanctity of life if we have to get into a debate about whether a deity exists, or about whether god(s) would be a source of moral values even if they did exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    As I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to healthy people being given access to voluntary euthanasia either, and I agree that any death would be better than continuing to live, but a painless death would be better than just any death.
    But the motion is specifically with respect to sick people

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Withdrawing treatment, failing to resuscitate people and turning off life-support machines are examples of policies which constitutionally support people's choices to end their lives, which you believe are sacred.
    No withdrawing treatment etc are private decisions made by individuals which do not involve the country agreeing with people actively killing themselves

    Yes, we probably won't ever agree on the point of the sanctity of human life, especially, as you say, since it partially invokes the question of whether there is God[s]
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Shouldn't someone have control over their fate? Provided they are mentally competent of course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    No, too much scope for it to be 'misused'
    there are numerous democracies today that have state-assisted suicide/euthanasia - point to me one of them that is "misusing" its policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah it should be. Take this scenario for instance:

    *A heated argument*

    Guy 1: I made love to your wife.
    Guy 2: I'm gonna kill you.
    Guy1: Go on then...
    *Guy 2 kills Guy 1*

    It would be unfair for Guy 2 to be charged for murder when Guy 1 has given consent for Guy 2 to kill him.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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

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