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

Petition: Should assisted suicide be legalised in the UK? Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapping)
    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.
    The fact that it is a heated argument means that Guy 1 cannot be said to have given true consent here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Argylesocksrox)
    Shouldn't someone have control over their fate? Provided they are mentally competent of course.
    And how do you prove mental competency when they're trying to kill themselves. Hell, if I were to stand on a railway bridge threatening to jump something tells me that I would deemed mentally unsound rather than being told "cool, if that's what you want;" intact I daresay that pretty much all the time people would legitimately support it is when they are otherwise mentally incapable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And how do you prove mental competency when they're trying to kill themselves. Hell, if I were to stand on a railway bridge threatening to jump something tells me that I would deemed mentally unsound rather than being told "cool, if that's what you want;" intact I daresay that pretty much all the time people would legitimately support it is when they are otherwise mentally incapable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Aye, I realised the folly of my argument as soon as I typed it, I was considering only issues of the body and not of the mind.

    Maybe we should legalise the prior and perhaps contemplate laws on the latter.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No. Assisted suicide is murder. God is the only one who should decide when you die.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    Yes because a human owns their own life.
    Debatable. Personally, I think God does.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody owns any life because ownership is not a valid moral concept.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nobody owns any life because ownership is not a valid moral concept.
    But do I own my pet goldfish as I bought him? Or are you just purely talking about humans?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise the elderly were parasites, economically maybe, but not physically.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm narrowing it down to those with mental or physical problems, who are aware of their misfortune. My grandparents are mentally and physically able, and others in their position would be able to commit suicide if they chose to, as opposed to the immobile and unhappy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And how do you prove mental competency when they're trying to kill themselves. Hell, if I were to stand on a railway bridge threatening to jump something tells me that I would deemed mentally unsound rather than being told "cool, if that's what you want;" intact I daresay that pretty much all the time people would legitimately support it is when they are otherwise mentally incapable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Le Suicide by Durkheim might be an interesting read for all participating in this debate. He would argue that some people who commit suicide are mentally competent. Altruistic suicide, in the case of an elderly person who asks to be assisted, might be because they feel as though they are a burden and their family would be, in the long run, better off. Many people commit suicide for similar reasons, going bankrupt for example (and the insurance helping the family), and they are not deemed mentally unstable... I don't think?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacksiggs)
    Le Suicide by Durkheim might be an interesting read for all participating in this debate. He would argue that some people who commit suicide are mentally competent. Altruistic suicide, in the case of an elderly person who asks to be assisted, might be because they feel as though they are a burden and their family would be, in the long run, better off. Many people commit suicide for similar reasons, going bankrupt for example (and the insurance helping the family), and they are not deemed mentally unstable... I don't think?
    Good point but you can twist the altruisitic suicide round the other way. Although an individual is willing to commit suicide for a group's benefit this can be due to highly fanatic integration into aforementioned social group, i.e Jihadists in the Islamic State.

    Not a relevant point to the conversation but woo Sociology!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Good point but you can twist the altruisitic suicide round the other way. Although an individual is willing to commit suicide for a group's benefit this can be due to highly fanatic integration into aforementioned social group, i.e Jihadists in the Islamic State.

    Not a relevant point to the conversation but woo Sociology!!!
    Anything sociological is relevant..... believe in yourself :afro:

    (Anyway, good point- hadn't thought of the less domestic situations it could take place in).
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    But do I own my pet goldfish as I bought him? Or are you just purely talking about humans?
    You own your goldfish legally. Morally speaking, that does not confer any right to that goldfish.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jacksiggs)
    Le Suicide by Durkheim might be an interesting read for all participating in this debate. He would argue that some people who commit suicide are mentally competent. Altruistic suicide, in the case of an elderly person who asks to be assisted, might be because they feel as though they are a burden and their family would be, in the long run, better off. Many people commit suicide for similar reasons, going bankrupt for example (and the insurance helping the family), and they are not deemed mentally unstable... I don't think?
    In the example given: insurance that shouldn't be paid. As for altruistic suicide of those who are burdens, there is always the question on whether they made the choice of their own accord or are pressured into it. You would need to be able to prove that they are both mentally competent and acting of their own accord.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Yes-but with tight control over who can access it and perhaps also with political approval from the Department of Health for each individual case. The risks of allowing assisted suicide to anybody without any background check are obvious, we could have a surge in suicide rates. However it is cruel and inhuman to force somebody in great pain to continue living when the medical probability of them overcoming their illness is slim. Of course there is an issue of families and how they would be impacted by it, but families need to have those difficult conversations with loved ones and unfortunately the state can do very little in that arena. I think however a conscious adult in the right circumstances must be able to exercise the option of ending his life if he feels that will provide him relief, and if the medical evidence suggests that there are very few other options, we have no right to object.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In the example given: insurance that shouldn't be paid.
    Obviously depends what it says in the insurance contract. Although it's unusual, it's not unheard of for life insurance to pay out in cases of suicide (though premiums are generally much higher in this case).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm, such a hard question to answer. One may examine it from a religious perspective or a simply moral one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There's something to be said about the fact that this debate is taking place amongst a group of people who are students, and therefore mostly the age of typical students (probably mostly under 25/30). Therefore, most people in this age group have the luxury of being able to see this issue from an objective or moral standpoint. As it happens, as much as objectivity holds a place in Law, and a vital one, it cannot be ignored that these are the lives and wishes of actual people that we're discussing. As much as I dislike the word, the ability to look at this as an unaffected outsider is something of a privilege; for most people here, it's not their own lives on the line, or that of someone close to them.

    Of course, even amongst disability rights' groups and those who are terminally ill, opinion is divided. To take even just a few examples, I and my former partner (both MS) would support the idea, at least in theory. My current partner (possible Huntingdon's) entirely opposes the concept. Another friend (Ehlers-Danlos, requiring a wheelchair) also opposes it, but less fervently than my current partner does, and accepts that it's within some people's wishes regardless. Still, these are the lives of people that we're discussing. People with wants, needs, wishes, hopes and fears. And to discuss these things from the detached standpoint of morality is an insult to these people's autonomy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by clonedmemories)
    And to discuss these things from the detached standpoint of morality is an insult to these people's autonomy.
    When their own positions are going to be derived from a set of moral decisions...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When their own positions are going to be derived from a set of moral decisions...
    Their positions are more likely to be decided on their personal wishes and own life experiences, combined with beliefs and values. The difference here is that it's actually going to affect them.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by clonedmemories)
    Their positions are more likely to be decided on their personal wishes and own life experiences, combined with beliefs and values. The difference here is that it's actually going to affect them.
    It's also going to affect a lot of other people, but ultimately they will almost certainly have their own moral base to go from, which at the end of the day will likely be along similar lines of those who are not in their position, the only difference is they can pretend their view is more valuable, or have others do so on their behalf, because of circumstances.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • 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.