Should euthanasia be legalised in the UK?

Yes, but many people who want to go abroad to countries like Switzerland can't because they don't want their loved ones to be prosecuted for 'assisting' them. Why do you think it's okay for them to go abroad and do it but not in our own country?



Can you stop using the 'slippery slope' argument please. It's fallacious and fails as an argument.

Has it not occurred to you that people may well want to end their life when things get beyond their control? That they don't want to carry on merely existing rather than living?

I know my parents have both long said exactly that, that they don't want to get to the point where Alzheimer's or dementia robs them ofeverything that makes them then.

Why deny people who are perfectly sane and rational from making a choice about their own lives? Who are you to dictate to them what they should do?

who are you to decide what people should do ?

you only want me to stop using it because it is true. it is ironic that you were giving me a hard time for my support for the death penalty... now you want your own version of it for the elderly !

Yes, but many people who want to go abroad to countries like Switzerland can't because they are unable by themselves don't want their loved ones to be prosecuted for 'assisting' them. At present you can be charged with manslaughter for assisted suicide abroad. Why do you think it's okay for them to go abroad and do it but not in our own country?

Can you stop using the 'slippery slope' argument please. It's fallacious and fails as an argument.

No I want you to stop using it because it's misleading and works on the premise of presumptions. That kind of argument would never hold up in court.

The death penalty and euthanasia are entirely different issues. Euthanasia is about autonomy whereas the death penalty has nothing to do with autonomy.

I'm not convinced these people know what's good for them and I'm happy for the state to keep these people alive through force.

Its already legal to go abroad yourself to a state which allows this, that's as far as I think we should go. Perhaps I'd prefer those who go with them to be given a fine over prison.

Personally I'm not sure I can ever be convinced. I'm so against it right now that if the Tories did this tomorrow I may never vote for them again.

Allowing its citizens to end their lives is not the action of a moral state.

hard cases make bad law. again it is a slippery slope; once you open the floodgates it will soon become accepted that Granny should bite the bullet and do the decent thing.

What are your opinions surrounding euthanasia, should it be legalised in the UK?
Considering the legal and moral aspects of the issue.

If so, why?

If you are against it, how come?


It would be great if you could reply- I'm writing a dissertation on euthanasia so I would love to hear others opinions!

Thank you

Simply because our state should not endorse such decadence. I can only imagine ever looser restrictions and eventually service on the NHS if this were allowed. The thought of my taxes paying for a citizens death is repulsive.

Euthanasia is in theory about autonomy; in practice everyone is embedded in society, no matter how special they think they are. Human nature would ensure that this theoretically noble process of leaving a tragic existence would soon descend into a de facto obligation on the unfortunate to give in to implicit or explict pressure to be killed.

So do you disagree with the legalisation of suicide in 1961 (by a tory government under Harold Macmillan, I believe)?

It is not directly comparable. Abortion involves another life - I oppose late-term abortions, and even mid-term ones. Euthanasia is the exercise of one's rights over one's own self, and only one's own self.

Like the bear, I think you've fallen into the 'slippery slope' trap which is argumentatively flawed. It doesn't make sense to reject something because of presumption of what something could descend into. Anything could ascend or descend into anything for all we know, but we don't know - so how can we use arguments that are based on things we don't know?



But you don't know that's what it would descend into. And you can't argue with presumptions. But we're making progress as it seems you accept that in its noble form, euthanasia is ethical?

in a purely theoretical case it would be acceptable. as i said, in practice everyone faces implicit or explicit pressures which would make it unacceptable.

Like the bear, I think you've fallen into the 'slippery slope' trap which is argumentatively flawed. It doesn't make sense to reject something because of presumption of what something could descend into. Anything could ascend or descend into anything for all we know, but we don't know - so how can we use arguments that are based on things we don't know?

But you don't know that's what it would descend into. And you can't argue with presumptions. But we're making progress as it seems you accept that in its noble form, euthanasia is ethical?

Well, if I had the power to introduce assisted suicide legislation, I would work to ensure that those theoretical standards were at all times and in every instance met. I would enforce high levels of safeguarding to make sure that misuse and abuse were near impossible. And the doctors who approved any assisted dying would be held accountable if abuse of the system was to take place. If they approve a case, they have to be able to substantially justify it and ensure it meets all the criterion of someone eligible for assisted death. This wouldn't be an easy approval by any means.

Of course you can. To not act on the basis of what could happen betrays taking a long term view.

You wouldn't send you entire armed forces to the Russian border and order them not to fire because their near presence could provoke a military reaction. Plenty of people object to making Heroin illegal because it could lead to an increase in the number of users.

With something as important as euthanasia one must look at what could happen. To not do so is to betray your duty to make decisions for the benefit of those you represent in parliament.

none of your so-called safeguarding measures would work. soon it would become part and parcel of growing old and frail... "still here Dear ? you are nearly 80..."

My point is, though, anything could happen. But we don't know. Risk assessment is important for making realistic predictions, yes, but I believe with the right level of safeguarding, which I have to emphasise is very high for legislation as serious as this, these slippery slope arguments are irrelevant and redundant. Examples like the one the bear gives below just wouldn't happen.



But it wouldn't because that would never be approved.