Why no debate on Euthanasia ?

Never Say Never Again

This country has been fixated on abortion the last few years but why aren't sjw types campaigning for euthanaisa to be legalised ?

everlast75

Because it would put everyone to sleep..

Beta Ray Bill

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

This country has been fixated on abortion the last few years but why aren't sjw types campaigning for euthanaisa to be legalised ?

It's next on the list FFS, Give'us a chance will ya!?

Zubeneschamali

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

This country has been fixated on abortion the last few years but why aren't sjw types campaigning for euthanaisa to be legalised ?

One massacre of the innocents at a time.

Mickeroo

Well one looks like it's actually going to a referendum of some kind in the near future and the other isn't.

Billgirlylegs

Some people are in a very sad situation, but as far as I know, there are no personal tragedies caused by the lack of a facility for euthanasia.

Speedwell

"SJW types"? Gee, it's easy to see where your head is. Look, the key thing about social justice is that it's social and it's justice. If it was antisocial or unjust, it wouldn't be social justice. That wasn't hard, was it. I think you mean "human rights".

Perhaps because the rights of people who are born and living take first priority. Should euthanasia be legalised? It has a lot to do with whose meaningful choice it is, which is perhaps where you got the tie-in with abortion.

professore

I think euthanasia, when it is something wanted by someone dying in pain from a terminal illness, is far more morally justifiable - in fact it's just plain common sense - than say a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion. The key thing is that the euthanasia is wanted by the person in question.

And obligatory joke .... "Euthanasia? I think we should look after the youth in Ireland first"

professore

Speedwell wrote: »

"SJW types"? Gee, it's easy to see where your head is. Look, the key thing about social justice is that it's social and it's justice. If it was antisocial or unjust, it wouldn't be social justice. That wasn't hard, was it. I think you mean "human rights".
.

Like "communism" where everyone gets an equal share, like is the case in communist countries like North Korea. Or "National Socialism" ... that one worked out well for Europe in the 30s and 40s.

Speedwell

professore wrote: »

Like "communism" where everyone gets an equal share, like is the case in communist countries like North Korea. Or "National Socialism" ... that one worked out well for Europe in the 30s and 40s.

Yes, exactly. When it's antisocial and unjust, it isn't social justice. Like I said...

PeterParker957

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One massacre of the innocents at a time.

Trust me if I end up with the illness my dad has, you can pull the plug any time you like.

The language of "massacre of the innocents" does not help debate.

_Dara_

I wish it was legal here. It would give people the maximum amount of quality time with their loved ones (rather than running off to a place where it’s legal while they are still physically able to go alone) and then let them pass on in a dignified manner when it all begins to fall apart and rapidly slide downhill. It would need strict monitoring and regulation though and soundness of mind of the individual to ensure that it is what they truly want.

I would do it and I’m in a position where I have unfortunately had to think about it. I don’t want a painful and undignified death, a shadow of my former self.

Sonics2k

professore wrote: »

Like "communism" where everyone gets an equal share, like is the case in communist countries like North Korea. Or "National Socialism" ... that one worked out well for Europe in the 30s and 40s.

I love that you don't know the difference between National Socialism and Socialism and yet you typed out that entire sentence trying to sound smug.

Well done you.

Zubeneschamali

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The language of "massacre of the innocents" does not help debate.

I gave up debating the prolifers, I just poke fun now, wait for them to die off.

Speedwell

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love that you don't know the difference between National Socialism and Socialism and yet you typed out that entire sentence trying to sound smug.

Well done you.

I do know the difference, thanks. I was wondering whether you did, though.

Sonics2k

Speedwell wrote: »

I do know the difference, thanks. I was wondering whether you did, though.

I didn't quote you though

Speedwell

Sonics2k wrote: »

I didn't quote you though

So?

Bitches Be Trypsin

I think euthanasia should be voted on before abortion. With euthanasia, it's a person making a choice about their life only. With abortion, it's ending the life of another (unborn, but the point remains).

If we can't vote on our own death, why can we vote on somebody else's?

Just to clarify I'm both pro choice and Pro euthanasia

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

It would need strict monitoring and regulation though and soundness of mind of the individual to ensure that it is what they truly want.

TBH, if it's done in a manner in which nobody is picking up a bill afterwards, I can't see what the problem is. Should be as simple as making any other kind of contract or agreement.

I would do it and I’m in a position where I have unfortunately had to think about it. I don’t want a painful and undignified death, a shadow of my former self.

Ditto. Although, I would consider the long drawn out "treatment" of an incurable condition to be punishment for everyone around me too. I went through the process of looking after two relatives with severe Alzheimers, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Since there's an increased risk of myself having Alzheimer's, I've already come to terms with ending my life early rather than putting my own family through that degradation of my personality/life/awareness.

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, if it's done in a manner in which nobody is picking up a bill afterwards, I can't see what the problem is. Should be as simple as making any other kind of contract or agreement.

The person should have all their mental faculties to consent. That's a minimum requirement. Otherwise, we're in morally dubious waters. Someone's care getting too expensive? Coerce them into euthanasia. It's very important to ascertain that this is what the individual personally wants and that they understand the gravity of it.

Ditto. Although, I would consider the long drawn out "treatment" of an incurable condition to be punishment for everyone around me too. I went through the process of looking after two relatives with severe Alzheimers, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Since there's an increased risk of myself having Alzheimer's, I've already come to terms with ending my life early rather than putting my own family through that degradation of my personality/life/awareness.

Well, I'm on palliative cancer treatment but it has actually given me a very good quality of life for now so it really depends on the treatment and its effects. Some treatments genuinely do give the patient their life back, even if only for a while. There are other women I know in my position who are working full-time on the palliative cancer treatment. You wouldn't know they (or I) have end-stage cancer if we didn't tell you we do.

But, yeah, other treatments pointlessly prolong life and give the patient a terrible quality of living.

Hector Bellend

Joe Duffy is on.

I'm considering euthanasia

HalloweenJack

I reckon it's far easier to "sell" euthanasia to people than abortion. It's far more straightforward. Terminally ill and want to die? Here you go. I can't see the problem.

While pro-choice, I can see the problems involved in the abortion debate and how it is harder to convince people to vote for it.

PeterParker957

_Dara_ wrote: »

The person should have all their mental faculties to consent. That's a minimum requirement. Otherwise, we're in morally dubious waters. Someone's care getting too expensive? Coerce them into euthanasia. It's very important to ascertain that this is what the individual personally wants and that they understand the gravity of it.



Well, I'm on palliative cancer treatment but it has actually given me a very good quality of life for now so it really depends on the treatment and its effects. Some treatments genuinely do give the patient their life back, even if only for a while. There are other women I know in my position who are working full-time on the palliative cancer treatment. You wouldn't know they (or I) have end-stage cancer if we didn't tell you we do.

But, yeah, other treatments pointlessly prolong life and give the patient a terrible quality of living.

Spot on.

When my last dog but this one was ill, the vet's exact words were "he could have another few months, but they'll be painful, he won't be able to do anything he normally does and it won't be pleasant when his time comes".

I see no reason why this can't be the same for people.

_Dara_ I'm certain everyone wishes you as long a life as possible but you should have the choice to say "when" at the time you choose.

Euthanasia?

I'm more worried about the adults.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

The person should have all their mental faculties to consent. That's a minimum requirement. Otherwise, we're in morally dubious waters. Someone's care getting too expensive? Coerce them into euthanasia. It's very important to ascertain that this is what the individual personally wants and that they understand the gravity of it.

Agreed... however, not done to the extent that it actually blocks the individuals wishes to just end it (with dignity). It seems to me that many of the measures that organisations put in place to "protect" the patient, do more to restrict their options rather than actually help.

Doctors and Psychologists have a bias to encourage life to continue... They're not going to support a persons right to end their own life, and will always find reasons why that person will not be "of sound mind"

Well, I'm on palliative cancer treatment but it has actually given me a very good quality of life for now so it really depends on the treatment and its effects. Some treatments genuinely do give the patient their life back, even if only for a while. There are other women I know in my position who are working full-time on the palliative cancer treatment. You wouldn't know they (or I) have end-stage cancer if we didn't tell you we do.

But, yeah, other treatments pointlessly prolong life and give the patient a terrible quality of living.

Spot on.

treatment should be a choice rather than this demand by society that you continue living. Not everyone wants to be a guinea pig for modern medicine while they try different combinations of procedures/drugs until they get it right. I've known a few people who would have preferred the option of ending it all early rather than go through the 'expected' procedures with little chance of them helping.

Two of my relatives did attempt suicide while being 'treated' but were 'saved' by nurses. Saved was a flexible term considering their conditions, the treatments and the damage done by the actual suicide attempt(s) made their remaining time horrible to endure. Not everyone wants extra time...

Don't get me wrong though. I understand that many people (probably the majority) are willing to fight a disease right to the end. And are willing to sign up to radical procedures to find some kind of cure. That's admirable. But the bahvior of the majority should not outweigh the choice of those people who would prefer to simply opt out and move on (to whatever happens after death).

Knex*

I think it should be available to everyone, regardless of your health. If you don't own your own life, what do you own?

I think if someone doesn't want to live anymore, then that's their decision. Providing we can provision them with some psychiatric care during the decision making process to ensure this is what they want to do, and they've thought it through as well as they can, then let them do it on their own terms.

For myself, it would have to be a terminal illness and for the avoidance of needless suffering that I would look towards euthanasia, but I still very much hope the option is there if things ever come to that for me. Otherwise I'll stock up on a little canister of carbon monoxide should such a need ever arise.

eviltwin

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I reckon it's far easier to "sell" euthanasia to people than abortion. It's far more straightforward. Terminally ill and want to die? Here you go. I can't see the problem.

While pro-choice, I can see the problems involved in the abortion debate and how it is harder to convince people to vote for it.

You would think so and yet it's not as common as abortion and those places that do allow it are steeped in controversy.

Zubeneschamali

eviltwin wrote: »

You would think so and yet it's not as common as abortion and those places that do allow it are steeped in controversy.

Killing an old person is murder everywhere.

Killing a 10 week fetus is not murder anywhere, even here with the 8th.

Everyone everywhere knows the difference between the two.

frag420

eviltwin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Killing an old person is murder everywhere.

Killing a 10 week fetus is not murder anywhere, even here with the 8th.

Everyone everywhere knows the difference between the two.

I don't believe in killing old people, I do believe anyone who wants to avail of an assisted suicide should be able to have one. I assume that's what the OP is referring to, not just random killing of the elderly.

PeterParker957

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't believe in killing old people, I do believe anyone who wants to avail of an assisted suicide should be able to have one. I assume that's what the OP is referring to, not just random killing of the elderly.

It's good that we have a cut off for the pro-"life" crowd.

From birth to elderly they couldn't give two sh***s.

Zubeneschamali

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't believe in killing old people, I do believe anyone who wants to avail of an assisted suicide should be able to have one. I assume that's what the OP is referring to, not just random killing of the elderly.

Sure, but folks are wondering why Euthanasia is controversial compared to abortion.

But everyone everywhere (even here in holy catholic Ireland) can tell the difference between killing an old or sick person (murder) and killing a fetus (not murder).

Because everyone everywhere knows the difference between an old or sick person and a fetus, even the people who pretend they think they are the same when it suits their anti-abortion arguments.

Speedwell

Speedwell wrote: »

So?

so you weren't wondering if sonics knew the difference and he wasn't asking you in the first place

Hannibal_Smith

I'm pretty sure there is an on going discussion on it. Though I can't find links when I Google. But I'm pretty sure I remember watching a committee discussion around the right to die with dignity on Oireachtas TV a few months ago.

There was also a thread on it here around the same time.