The Student Room Group

Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because

Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available now to all sick old people in order to relieve pain and suffering now?

because

Two-thirds of Briton support legalising assisted dying, poll shows

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/28/two-thirds-of-britons-support-legalising-assisted-dying-poll-shows
(edited 1 year ago)

Scroll to see replies

No thanks, don't want the Canadian scenario here.
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
No thanks, don't want the Canadian scenario here.

what 'Canadian Scenario' would that be ?

people inventing clickbait stories and deliberately misintrepreting / misrepresentating conversations they have had with HCPs ? ( see also discussion about DNAPCR/ ReSPECT forms and the Liverpool Care Pathway /other EoL care pathways )
Original post by Miss Pulford
what 'Canadian Scenario' would that be ?

people inventing clickbait stories and deliberately misintrepreting / misrepresentating conversations they have had with HCPs ? ( see also discussion about DNAPCR/ ReSPECT forms and the Liverpool Care Pathway /other EoL care pathways )

I don't believe euthanasia is entirely ethical.
As above, I consider euthanasia to be morally offensive.

I consider the first duty of the state to be to protect it's citizens, thus permissively allowing it's citizens to die at the behest of the NHS is a horrific notion to me, I don't even like do not resuscitate notices.

The only area I give movement is that I wouldn't prosecute those who go to Switzerland with them.
No.

The UK is not Belgium, Canada or The Netherlands. Nor Switzerland.
Original post by londonmyst
No.

The UK is not Belgium, Canada or The Netherlands. Nor Switzerland.

indeed weare not , instead we are country where clickbait and feelings overide policy making in healthcare resulting in unacceptable levles of suicide as well as the prosecution of of the loved ones of terminally ill people who have taken a ballanced and informed decision to end their suffering while they can still exercise a degree of control
Original post by Miss Pulford
indeed weare not , instead we are country where clickbait and feelings overide policy making in healthcare resulting in unacceptable levles of suicide as well as the prosecution of of the loved ones of terminally ill people who have taken a ballanced and informed decision to end their suffering while they can still exercise a degree of control

Suicide and attempting suicide is legal within the UK.
As is any adult with mental capacity choosing to decline all medical treatment.
Those who wish to do the latter can highlight their stances with living wills or granting a PoA to a likeminded adult who will comply with their instructions in the event that they become incapacitated.

It is the flouting of uk laws by those who opt to enter into criminal conspiracies whilst within uk territories that is unlawful. Aiding or abetting/counselling/procuring or otherwise assisting the suicide of a 3rd party, unlawful act manslaughter or murder.
Those who choose to unlawfully assist in suicide or gamble on their direct involvement in so-called involuntary euthanasia earning them a murder conviction know what they are risking.
I believe it is best for the UK to have robustly enforced laws that do not allow any substantial grey zone leeways for the wannabe Kevorkians, Minellis and Wiebes of this world to exploit or abuse to line their own pockets.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by londonmyst
Suicide and attempting suicide is legal within the UK.
As is any adult with mental capacity choosing to decline all medical treatment.
Those who wish to do the latter can highlight their stances with living wills or granting a PoA to a likeminded adult who will comply with their instructions in the event that they become incapacitated.

It is the flouting of uk laws by those who opt to enter into criminal conspiracies whilst within uk territories that is unlawful. Aiding or abetting/counselling/procuring or otherwise assisting the suicide of a 3rd party, unlawful act manslaughter or murder.
Those who choose to unlawfully assist in suicide or gamble on their direct involvement in so-called involuntary euthanasia earning them a murder conviction know what they are risking.
Best for the to have robustly enforced laws that do not allow any substantial grey zone leeways for the wannabe Kevorkians, Minellis and Wiebes of this world to exploit or abuse to line their own pockets.

Quite clear you are utterly ill-informed and somewhat of a Conspiracy theorist
Original post by Miss Pulford
Quite clear you are utterly ill-informed and somewhat of a Conspiracy theorist

Going by your posts on this thread you could gain some very valuable knowledge of UK laws from taking a quick look at the current legislation relating to suicide, unlawful act manslaughter and murder.
Then reading through a few of the trial transcripts of the felons serving prison time for contravening them over the last 15 years.
Good luck and Happy New Year!
Original post by Miss Pulford
Thanks for confirming your utter ignorance as can be demonstrated by your use of the word 'felon' in regard to people convicted in UK courts.

I also note you have failed to address the evidence base in this regard or the court cases brought by people who have made an informed and considered decision to end their life but require assistance to do so due to their debilitated physicl condition.

I strongly recommend toy familirise ytourself wit hthew Mental Capacity Act and also stop assuming that the peopel you are speaking to do or have not dealt with MCA / DoLS and the like as a routine part of their professional life,.

You could gain some very valuable knowledge of UK criminal laws from taking a quick look at the current legislation relating to suicide, unlawful act manslaughter and murder.

My comments on this thread focus upon the UKs criminal laws.
Not the medical capacity arena, OS deputyship or related civil legal issues that are a matter for the CoP and the specialist medical professions that work within the system.

If you prefer to use the terms "convicted criminal" or "ex-con" instead of "felon", that's fine.
Regardless of your personal preferences many UK criminal court judges will continue to use the terms "felon" and "jailbird"- as plenty of judges in Canada & the USA do .

Happy New Year!
Original post by Rakas21
As above, I consider euthanasia to be morally offensive.

I consider the first duty of the state to be to protect it's citizens, thus permissively allowing it's citizens to die at the behest of the NHS is a horrific notion to me, I don't even like do not resuscitate notices.

The only area I give movement is that I wouldn't prosecute those who go to Switzerland with them.

True, but at what point is treatment for treatments sake going against a person's natural process? There are people in hospital right now who have no family and are at the end of their life. They might have a broken hip because they fell and as a result of recovering for that in hospital have lost the ability to walk. They may not be able to feed themselves or wash or toilet themselves. They are effectively a living body being kept alive... for what? For whom? They have zero quality of life. Surely they should be in a hospice allowed to die in peace and comfort?

And where as the NHS' mission to treat everyone no matter who they are or what their need is laudable, it is a finite service. Whilst these hypothetical people are being treated at huge expense in hospital, other fitter people are being denied access to healthcare.

My mum doesn't want to be in that position. I have already signed her power of attorney which states she is not to be fed or resuscitated in an end of life situation. Surely it should be down to the individual to decide? Those with the means can go to Switzerland. But here we have a situation a bit like in the US where women seeking an abortion have to go elsewhere to get it. If people want something surely it is morally correct to make it easy rather than hard - they are going to end their life one way or another anyway.
(edited 1 year ago)
Yes. Euthanasia should be allowed for people suffering from terminal illness. It is immoral that we force people to suffer and do not enable them the right to die with dignity.
euthanasia is not legally assigned dying,
so maybe we should get our facts straight first? difference matters when it comes to law and responsibility, anyway.

euthanasia is a case where a medical professional actively kills the patient with the patient's consent. puts the proverbial pillow over said patient's head. this is illegal in most other countries too, including switzerland. meanwhile, assisted dying is when a doctor prescribes drugs to the patient and then the patient voluntarily takes the drug themselves to end their own life. voluntarily doing it to themselves, this is akin to suicide, which takes capacity from the patient's perspective. this is legal in switzerland just as suicide is legal and is over £10k so not available on a whim on a drunken weekend or if you're living off welfare cheques, probably.

suicide is legal in the UK too except successfully commiting suicide without medical assistance is not by far as easy as it looks on television. netflix makes it look like someone can just take a bunch of pills or do some other nsfw action and it's over, but in reality instead of dead a person will probably at worst injure themselves and wake up in hospital in an even worse position than before. assisted dying assures this won't happen and that no one will witness it against their will, which i'm in favour for, and if i had the £10k i'd be on the first flight out of here. not everyone fancies living and there is no moral obligation to live just cuz other people want them to, except imo if a person has dependent children to raise/care for and even then that's on the person themselves to decide for. not like the state prosecutes those who abandon their children even tho it's unfortunate when they do.

also the poll in the link does not say brits support euthanasia or legally assisted dying for all old sick people, as suggested in the op; it says brits support assisted dying for those who are terminally ill, mentally competent. ie person despite their age suffers from a physically incurable disease where death is certain and the person is capable of making their own choices. unlikely then there would be public support for a 60 yr old with dementia be permitted assisted dying just cuz they have a headache. for one, person in question lacks the ability to fully understand the situation; and two, they aren't suffering enough based on those grounds alone. anyway, despite public support for it i would be shocked if britain legalised assisted dying in our lifetime. euthanasia is defo not even suggested in the house afaik

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/assisted-dying-bill-hl/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/19/uk-assisted-dying-campaigners-hope-for-new-vote-in-next-parliament
Reply 14
Original post by Judith_cohen
Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available now to all sick old people in order to relieve pain and suffering now?
because
Two-thirds of Briton support legalising assisted dying, poll shows
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/28/two-thirds-of-britons-support-legalising-assisted-dying-poll-shows

yes

UK assisted dying bill offers ‘strictest safeguards’ in world

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/11/assisted-dying-bills-strict-safeguards-to-include-long-jail-terms-for-coercion

https://www.ft.com/content/1c1e27a2-e026-445e-81fc-b0e31dff016c
(edited 3 months ago)
Reply 15
The safeguards are similar to those around abortion in the UK and abortion has become a free for all that no doctor will refuse.

Thankfully the Labour cabinet is divided so we may avoid the bill passing (a moral offense).
Original post by Rakas21
The safeguards are similar to those around abortion in the UK and abortion has become a free for all that no doctor will refuse.
Thankfully the Labour cabinet is divided so we may avoid the bill passing (a moral offense).

Why is euthanasia a moral offense? If someone is terminally ill then they should be given the right to end their life. Anything else is immoral.
Reply 17
Original post by SHallowvale
Why is euthanasia a moral offense? If someone is terminally ill then they should be given the right to end their life. Anything else is immoral.

I consider the first duty of the state to be protection of its citizens and places value on life. As unfortunate an experience a minority of people may face, it is morally offensive to me that the British state would assist in the suicide of its citizenry. Indeed, it is pretty much that only social issue I would vote based on were a Tory leader ever to vote for such.

As a pragmatist however I am not without compromise and so would remove the illegality surrounding joining family members abroad. That is a matter for the Swiss (or otherwise) state.

Given the state of political discourse and what we've seen in the Netherlands and Canada (court cases relating to depression), I also frankly don't trust the liberals who support such policy. One of the reasons I have become increasingly socially conservative over the past decade is essentially because in my view the right spent most of the 90's and 00's adopting reasonable compromise and far from forming a settled will, we now live in a state in which a large element of the liberal left now wishes to 'destroy' social norms and push further and further into extreme notions like this. You feed the crocodile and it will come back for more.
Original post by Rakas21
I consider the first duty of the state to be protection of its citizens and places value on life. As unfortunate an experience a minority of people may face, it is morally offensive to me that the British state would assist in the suicide of its citizenry. Indeed, it is pretty much that only social issue I would vote based on were a Tory leader ever to vote for such.
As a pragmatist however I am not without compromise and so would remove the illegality surrounding joining family members abroad. That is a matter for the Swiss (or otherwise) state.
Given the state of political discourse and what we've seen in the Netherlands and Canada (court cases relating to depression), I also frankly don't trust the liberals who support such policy. One of the reasons I have become increasingly socially conservative over the past decade is essentially because in my view the right spent most of the 90's and 00's adopting reasonable compromise and far from forming a settled will, we now live in a state in which a large element of the liberal left now wishes to 'destroy' social norms and push further and further into extreme notions like this. You feed the crocodile and it will come back for more.

Why should the duty of the state to protect its citizens extend to cases where A) the citizen is on the verge of death and B) the citizen willingly wants to end their life? What would make it immoral if the state were to support the citizen and help them end their own life?

What would be immoral is if the state were to force said citizen to resume living, knowing that the rest of their life will be extremely painful both physically and emotionally. Social norms shouldn't exist for the sake of it, especially not if there are good reasons to break social norms and change society; in this case, and presumably others you're referring to, there are.
I'm seeing that the current proposals would be only be for terminal people with less than 6 months and need 2 doctors and a high court judge.... so isn't that just another way of saying no? who would have faith in that being done in 6 months? I've had to deal with courts for care and guardianship issues before, and it was painfully slow to the point of outrage.

Quick Reply