Euthanasia

Brian?

AllForIt wrote: »

It absolutely is not solely religious conservatives that object to it.

Who said it was? The overwhelming majority of people who object to it do so for religious reasons.

Because it is ppl of the ilk I'm taking about who object to it. That's what it's got to do with, I would have though that was obvious.

Seriously now. What people? Have you any examples? It’s far from obvious

I am hitting the nail on the head in respect of the right target. It is those ppl who object to euthanasia because of their non-religious beliefs. The UK is largely a secular state so who is it that is putting up barriers against it there only non-religious ideologues of which SJW's are a part of.

You’ve missed the target and hit the nail, quality mixed metaphor. The amount of people that object to assisted suicide/euthanasia on non religious beliefs is completely dwarfed by those objecting to it on religious grounds. The overwhelming majority of left wing people, who I assume you call SJWs, are in favour of it.

The UK is not a secular state. The head of state and the head of the church are he same person.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AllForIt wrote: »

It absolutely is not solely religious conservatives that object to it.



Because it is ppl of the ilk I'm taking about who object to it. That's what it's got to do with, I would have though that was obvious.

I am hitting the nail on the head in respect of the right target. It is those ppl who object to euthanasia because of their non-religious beliefs. The UK is largely a secular state so who is it that is putting up barriers against it there only non-religious ideologues of which SJW's are a part of.

The poster you quoted didn’t say “solely”. They said “for the most part”.

In the US, despite being a minority religion, the Catholic church has been one of the main groups holding up the passing of Death With Dignity laws in many states. I’m incredulous at your claim that only non-religious idealogues oppose it in the UK. That is hopelessly naïve. The UK might be overall a much more secular country than Ireland but there are still very active religions over there.

This is the most lame swipe at SJWs that I’ve ever seen on boards.ie. People seem to be recognising it as such though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

lucalux wrote: »

I wonder if any opponents to assisted suicide have considered just how 'simple' it actually is for a person to end their own life.

The effective methods can be messy. The 'cleaner' methods are not always guaranteed.

Organ donation can be considered if it is a planned procedure. Not to mention the dignity and comfort of having a medical professional to guide the way and the knowledge that you will be affecting only people who have an ability to cope with the aftermath.

To say 'just go and do it, nothing stopping you' is all well and good.
I wonder about the people who have to deal with the aftermath.

Ask Iarnrod Eireann staff who work the line, if they would prefer people had a more dignified path to tread. Ask the Gardaí. Fire services. Ask the Sub-Aqua volunteers. Coastguard. State Pathologists. Family members coming home to scenes that will haunt them. Ones they wished never to see. Did not need to see.

I would be of the opinion that palliative care and medically supervised assisted suicide could be implemented in this country with care and compassion for those who consider it necessary for themselves. Abuses of the systems already in place in other jurisdictions is minimal as far as I can see.

A positive result from having a legitimate pathway in place could also be that, in investigating the option of assisted suicide, some people may realise that it is not what they need.

I am coming at this from my own perspective of considering these options for myself.
I have seen young people face terminal illness, and I have helped care for elderly relatives, all with varying attitudes to death and dying.

Modern medicine prolongs life. I'm of the firm opinion that is not always a good thing.

None of us are the same. 'Selfishness' can't really be gauged by our own set of morals.

Great post. I agree with it all.

sbsquarepants

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect.

.

Exactly - people believe in all manner of crazy shít. The fact you "believe" something means precisely nothing. There are people out there who believe watching the x factor makes for a great Saturday night - crazy bastards:mad:

I say let them at it, but you'll be sorry if you try force me to watch it!

As far as I'm concerned everyone is entitled to their beliefs and indeed to live by them, along with all the suffering and misery that entails for themselves, just so long as everyone else is also entitled to completely ignore those beliefs and to live by their own.

PlaneSpeeking

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not just the death stage that worries me. If I was faced with perhaps a dementia diagnosis or serious disability such as MND or later stages of MS, and facing into years in a nursing home or requiring extensive family support for normal daily living like going to the loo, I think I'd be inclined to put on the final playlist and drink the cocktail or whatever was necessary. Maybe my opinion would change, but I really wouldn't want to think of paying very large costs for care in a situation where I was incontinent or just not capable of enjoying the little things in life. I've seen what is supposedly one of the best nursing homes in the country for dementia care up close with a relative, and I really don't think I'd want to be there, sitting for hours in a TV room each day.

You're spot on. My dad's place called yesterday, he was refusing to take meds, very angry and calling the carers terrible names.

That's not the person I recognise and it's the dementia that is talking.

No way am I able to go through that, the first diagnosis and I'm off.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Respectfully, I don’t agree with your point of view Susie, and I have watched plenty of people I love die, some people peacefully, some people in agony, some people I disagreed that they should be allowed to die, some people I thought they couldn’t go soon enough. The point is that you’re making blanket statements about other people too, and I don’t know whether you realised it or not.

I don’t imagine that Grace intends any malice when she says that suicide is unacceptable, I would be of the same view, and I certainly couldn’t be accused of not considering the set of circumstances that a person who takes their own life finds themselves in. Well, I could be accused of it, but the people making that accusation would be wrong.

I’m just as annoyed that people have such little regard for human life that they compare humans to animals, and we put animals down when they are no longer useful, why not humans? If I were of Graces vintage, that question would be far more likely to play on my mind than the age I’m at now, all other circumstances of course being equal. Grace will also likely have had far more experience of friends and relatives and loved ones that have gone before her than I would, so on that basis alone I would want to give Grace a fair hearing rather than simply dismiss her opinions out of hand as has been attempted to be done here. I don’t find her opinions annoying, I find some people’s opinions on the subject of euthanasia far more irritating, and certainly I wouldn’t hold their opinions in the same regard as someone who is likely to have far more experience of the issues involved than I do.

I'm fully aware that some people do indeed die peaceful deaths, but it isn't true for all cases, and it isn't a good enough reason to take the choice away from someone who might choose differently.

The problem with Grace's style of posting is that she will drop in on a contentious thread with a few inflammatory one liners, perhaps this isn't her intention, but its certainly how it comes across.
Then when anyone questions her position she flounces off in a huff, and we're left here, arguing over what she meant, or perhaps didn't mean, which is exactly where we are now.

I respect Grace's right to think euthanasia/suicide is the wrong choice for herself, but I certainly don't respect her arrogance to assume she can make that choice for anyone else, and I don't respect her refusal to acknowledge the suffering & trauma someone with a degenerative or terminal illness might go through.

sightband

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Bullsh!t. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect.

Some people believe that homosexuals are an abomination and should be put to death and can quote you chapter and verse of their religious book to justify their belief.

I could go on. You can believe what you want, BUT when your beliefs conflict with the rights of others that's when the right to demand respect for your beliefs ends.

Congratulations, you’ve just achieved the straw man argument of the decade, bullish!t is right.

looksee

sightband wrote: »

Congratulations, you’ve just achieved the straw man argument of the decade, bullish!t is right.

Could you enlarge on why that is a strawman argument?

sightband

looksee wrote: »

Could you enlarge on why that is a strawman argument?

No, it’s staring you in the face. I know exactly what your next post will be so don’t bother.

SusieBlue

sightband wrote: »

Congratulations, you’ve just achieved the straw man argument of the decade, bullish!t is right.

What's bullsh*t about not all beliefs being worthy of respect?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s written in the article you linked to -

The Supreme Court said nothing in its judgment should be taken as necessarily implying that it would not be open to the State in the event that the Oireachtas were satisfied that measures with appropriate safeguards could be introduced, to legislate to deal with a case such as that of Ms Fleming.


That’s not the same thing as suggesting that the Oireachtas could introduce a sort of a “free for all” with regards to legislating for euthanasia.

Massive move of the goalposts on your part. Who suggested there could be a "free for all" or that that would be desirable? But then you came out with this rather disingenuous nugget:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m just as annoyed that people have such little regard for human life that they compare humans to animals, and we put animals down when they are no longer useful, why not humans?

It is entirely obvious from this thread that this is not what people are saying at all.

What they are saying is that it is wrong to allow an animal in your care to suffer needlessly - in fact we have laws against this. But when it comes to dying humans, we cannot give them a "humane" death even when they ask for it. Withdrawal of treatment is possible, palliative care is possible, but neither of these ensure a humane death.

Hotblack Desiato

sightband wrote: »

Congratulations, you’ve just achieved the straw man argument of the decade, bullish!t is right.

Do you actually know what a strawman argument is? It appears not.

sightband

SusieBlue wrote: »

What's bullsh*t about not all beliefs being worthy of respect?

Because I never said all beliefs are worthy of respect. I said their belief on euthanasia and suicide are worthy of respect.

It’s bloody idiotic to say every belief there ever was or is is worthy of respect.

sightband

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you actually know what a strawman argument is? It appears not.

You posted it for him

Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.

That’s exactly what you did by saying that I said every belief should be respected and giving a ridiculous example of people who believe that homosexuals should be put to death.

SusieBlue

sightband wrote: »

Because I never said all beliefs are worthy of respect. I said their belief on euthanasia and suicide are worthy of respect.

It’s bloody idiotic to say every belief there ever was or is is worthy of respect.

And no one said she isn't entitled to that belief, but I don't think that makes it automatically worthy of respect.

Its very hard to respect someone who is posting insensitive things such as suicide always being "unacceptable" and completely dismissing the suffering of those living with a terminal illness.

There is nothing to respect when someone is perpetuating the notion that someone in a huge deal of pain with a terminal illness should suffer on in silence just to satisfy someone else's personal feelings on the matter.
We all own our own lives.

I respect her right to make that choice for herself, but not for me.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Massive move of the goalposts on your part. Who suggested there could be a "free for all" or that that would be desirable? But then you came out with this rather disingenuous nugget:

It is entirely obvious from this thread that this is not what people are saying at all.

It wasn’t obvious to me at all tbh because throughout the thread people seem to be of the belief that it should be entirely their personal choice to give permission to someone else to end their life, without any interference from the State. That’s not what legislating for euthanasia is about. It’s about the State acknowledging that someone else has permission to end people’s lives. In other countries where euthanasia has been legislated for, its limited to medical professionals. Ordinary people IMO should never have the right to end someone else’s life. When I said “free for all” I meant that it wouldn’t be broad circumstances euthanasia would be permitted in, but only in very specific circumstances such as when a patient is regarded as terminal already, not that they are suffering but not terminal, as was the case with Marie Fleming and thousands of other people who are suffering, but not terminally ill.

What they are saying is that it is wrong to allow an animal in your care to suffer needlessly - in fact we have laws against this. But when it comes to dying humans, we cannot give them a "humane" death even when they ask for it. Withdrawal of treatment is possible, palliative care is possible, but neither of these ensure a humane death.

I don’t get why animals are brought into the argument at all tbh. We clearly don’t regard animals in the same way as humans, so to compare the treatment of animals and humans on just this one aspect alone is to my mind at least a very poor argument. We put horses down for example if they have a broken leg. We don’t do the same for humans. There are just too many differences in how we treat animals to how we treat humans for the comparison to hold up. As for the bit in bold, I disagree, that is entirely the point of the development of palliative care. Our difference of opinion is solely down to what we regard as dying with dignity, and allowing people to die with dignity. That’s a question for society to answer, rather than individuals themselves in those circumstances. It goes to how we as a society treat people, rather than what individuals decide for themselves when their welfare is placed in the hands of other people who are not them. I wouldn’t want anyone who has ideas about ending my life the same way animals lives are ended, anywhere near me tbh. Biologically, yes of course - humans are animals, but humans are people, animals are not.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t get why animals are brought into the argument at all tbh.

Because one of the primary reasons we end the life of an animal is to end their suffering.

We can argue that a horse with a broken leg is too expensive to rehabilitate, and chemotherapy for a dog is expensive and distressing.

But in these cases we don't say, "Do nothing". We don't leave a horse languish on its side or limping around with a broken leg. We don't leave a dog lying in its bed, struggling to breath.

We put the animal to sleep, so that they don't have to keep suffering.

Society regards animals as "lesser" than humans. We treat them very poorly, we torture them, slaughter them, and eat them.

And yet still, the idea of letting them die a slow and painful death is abhorrent to us.

But for some reason when it comes to humans, allowing them to die a slow and painful death is something people not only tolerate, but actively fight to make a requirement?

It makes no sense.

Hotblack Desiato

sightband wrote: »

You posted it for him

No, it was an analogy.

sightband wrote: »

Because I never said all beliefs are worthy of respect. I said their belief on euthanasia and suicide are worthy of respect.

It’s bloody idiotic to say every belief there ever was or is is worthy of respect.

Why are some beliefs worthy of respect and not others, in your opinion?

I posted my criteria - believe what you want, but if you want to diminish the rights of others I can't respect that.

Graces7's view on euthanasia diminishes the rights of others and condemns them to suffering for no other apparent reason than keeping her god happy.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t get why animals are brought into the argument at all tbh.

So why did you post this then?

I’m just as annoyed that people have such little regard for human life that they compare humans to animals, and we put animals down when they are no longer useful, why not humans?

NOBODY had said anything of the sort. Now that's a strawman.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Because one of the primary reasons we end the life of an animal is to end their suffering.

We can argue that a horse with a broken leg is too expensive to rehabilitate, and chemotherapy for a dog is expensive and distressing.

But in these cases we don't say, "Do nothing". We don't leave a horse languish on its side or limping around with a broken leg. We don't leave a dog lying in its bed, struggling to breath.

We put the animal to sleep, so that they don't have to keep suffering.

Society regards animals as "lesser" than humans. We treat them very poorly, we torture them, slaughter them, and eat them.

And yet still, the idea of letting them die a slow and painful death is abhorrent to us.

But for some reason when it comes to humans, allowing them to die a slow and painful death is something people not only tolerate, but actively fight to make a requirement?

It makes no sense.

I don’t agree with your premise that one of the primary reasons we end the life of an animal is to end their suffering. Ok of course it’s a primary reason for some people, but the primary reason we end the life of an animal, is because we need to live, they’re food, essentially. We regard animals in an entirely utilitarian context for the most part - their usefulness to us. We do not regard humans through the same utilitarian glasses so to speak. We place an impetus on society to care for it’s most vulnerable members of society, rather than suggest that the concept of human dignity requires that we end their suffering by ending their lives. We try and minimise their suffering in all cases, that’s how modern medicine develops and why palliative care was developed and is in practice far more popular than euthanasia.

Even though some people argue that palliative care and chemotherapy and organ replacements or other treatments are too expensive in most cases when weighed against the cost of the quality of life a person can be provided with, we still regard the concept of life over death as offering more benefit to society. It’s the fundamental basis upon which a society flourishes - our capacity to cheat death.

I don’t agree with your argument that we tolerate people dying slow and painful deaths, or that we tolerate humans suffering. We clearly don’t, we make every attempt scientifically, medically and technologically possible to minimise suffering and people who would previously have been regarded as having no foreseeable quality of life because their suffering would be greater than their quality of life are now being treated with dignity, precisely because we don’t simply regard them with the same utilitarian glasses so to speak, as we do animals.

That’s why for me at least, the comparison to how we treat animals (and even your euphemism that animals are put to sleep - they’re not waking up!), doesn’t hold up. Nature has no regard for dignity, it’s an entirely human concept, and we have all sorts of beliefs and rituals and so on which are fundamentally based upon acknowledging human dignity, and that’s why some people regard animals in the same way - they are extending the human concept of dignity to animals, and what your argument is trying to do is say that because some people regard animals with dignity, we should treat humans the same way as those people treat animals. I’d rather not, tbh. I see that as a regression of human civilisation rather than anything, I don’t see anything remotely progressive about euthanasia. I don’t regard attempting to minimise people’s suffering as prolonging their suffering at all.

looksee

sightband wrote: »

No, it’s staring you in the face. I know exactly what your next post will be so don’t bother.

Oooh creepy. And you know a great deal more than me in that case.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So why did you post this then?

NOBODY had said anything of the sort. Now that's a strawman.

Well it’s a bit like the way you read the Judges opinion as explicitly saying something it didn’t, that’s just how you interpreted their opinion. In the same way, that’s how I interpreted some people’s opinions. It wasn’t a strawman or any attempt at a strawman, it was how I perceived their arguments. If I was meant to perceive their arguments some other way - grand, we’ve cleared that up then.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t agree with your premise that one of the primary reasons we end the life of an animal is to end their suffering. Ok of course it’s a primary reason for some people, but the primary reason we end the life of an animal, is because we need to live, they’re food, essentially.

It's clear that we're not discussing the killing of animals for food.

We're discussing the euthanasia of animals who are terminally or chronically ill.

Another strawman from you.

Deebles McBeebles

We're nearly out of straw, can I interest anyone in a hayman instead?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

It's clear that we're not discussing the killing of animals for food.

We're discussing the euthanasia of animals who are terminally or chronically ill.

Another strawman from you.

It’s not a strawman at all. Of course it’s clear we’re not discussing the killing of animals for food, but when you make the argument that one of the primary reasons we kill animals is to end their suffering, I’m going to point out to you that it’s not the primary reason. We kill animals for lots of reasons, and any of those reasons could be argued as “one of” the primary reasons - for sport for example, just for the hell of it another example.

That’s why I made the point that you’re extending human dignity to animals you see as suffering, and then using that logic to argue that we should treat humans the same way on the basis that some people regard animals with human dignity. That’s why you use euphemisms like putting animals to sleep and treating them humanely. I disagree with the idea that we should view people who are suffering the same way as we do animals which are suffering. Some people choose to view animals the same way they do humans, that doesn’t stand to reason that we all should, or we’d all be vegans. I don’t view animals the same way as humans, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most other people don’t either. It’s a comparison with a very limited context, entirely predicated upon circular logic - some people treat animals the same way we do humans, so we should treat humans the same way as those people treat animals.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a strawman at all. Of course it’s clear we’re not discussing the killing of animals for food, but when you make the argument that one of the primary reasons we kill animals is to end their suffering, I’m going to point out to you that it’s not the primary reason. We kill animals for lots of reasons, and any of those reasons could be argued as “one of” the primary reasons - for sport for example, just for the hell of it another example.

OK, captain pedantic.

That’s why I made the point that you’re extending human dignity to animals you see as suffering, and then using that logic to argue that we should treat humans the same way on the basis that some people regard animals with human dignity. That’s why you use euphemisms like putting animals to sleep and treating them humanely. I disagree with the idea that we should view people who are suffering the same way as we do animals which are suffering. Some people choose to view animals the same way they do humans, that doesn’t stand to reason that we all should, or we’d all be vegans. I don’t view animals the same way as humans, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most other people don’t either. It’s a comparison with a very limited context, entirely predicated upon circular logic - some people treat animals the same way we do humans, so we should treat humans the same way as those people treat animals.

Wow, that's a lot of knots you're tying yourself in for the sake of being contrarian.

TL;DR, "I disagree with drawing any comparisons between humans and animals, and therefore I reject your input to the debate about suffering and euthanasia on a point of principle."

For what it's worth, if you're unwilling to accept that animals suffer and we euthanise them to relieve that suffering, then I'm going to consider you nothing more than a timewaster on this topic.

ProfessorPlum

Jesus. Is it just me or is OEJ almost as annoying as Graces on this one?

sullivlo

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Jesus. Is it just me or is OEJ almost as annoying as Graces on this one?

More.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

OK, captain pedantic.

Wow, that's a lot of knots you're tying yourself in for the sake of being contrarian.

TL;DR, "I disagree with drawing any comparisons between humans and animals, and therefore I reject your input to the debate about suffering and euthanasia on a point of principle."

For what it's worth, if you're unwilling to accept that animals suffer and we euthanise them to relieve that suffering, then I'm going to consider you nothing more than a timewaster on this topic.

I’m neither being pedantic nor contrarian, but if you want an echo chamber then certainly I’ll bow out of the discussion as I’m not particularly invested in discussing the issue on an Internet forum anyway.

I don’t imagine it’s worth much, but certainly I can accept that animals suffer and sometimes some people euthanise them to relieve their suffering. I just don’t agree that people who are suffering should be regarded the same way is all. I think the analogy to how some people humanise animals is fundamentally flawed. The reason why it’s flawed goes back to your basis for making the argument - that we don’t tolerate animals suffering. We do, and in far greater numbers than humans, and if we actually didn’t tolerate animals suffering - we’d all be vegans. As it turns out, the vast majority of people aren’t vegan, not even in our Western culture where there is no necessity for animals to suffer to provide us with food.

The fact of the matter is that most people have no qualms whatsoever with animals suffering, they’re tasty. The same cannot be said of our perception of other people, and a lot of the reasons for that are based upon our values which are informed by culture and society. There’s a context to the argument regarding the numerous issues around euthanising people which I feel you’re purposely ignoring to suggest that we should treat people who are suffering the same way we treat animals when they are suffering as it’s not palatable for us to be aware of people’s suffering and how it’s uncomfortable for us to know there’s nothing we can do to allieviate their suffering in those circumstances.

The argument as to what constitutes human dignity and how we treat people and how we acknowledge human dignity, should not be based upon how we treat animals.

jimgoose

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...The argument as to what constitutes human dignity and how we treat people and how we acknowledge human dignity, should not be based upon how we treat animals.

Well, I don't think it is, really. The animal end of it is somewhat useful inasmuch as it illustrates a compassion for a suffering creature that - and this is a key point - is at that point of no use. It will sound somewhat callous but people who are at this stage of the game are generally of no use either - indeed if you want to get right down to the cold, hard brass-tacks of it the vast majority of people are of no use whatsoever, but that's another conversation - but they can at least tell you, in a somewhat reasoned way, whether or not they wish to continue with life under the current circumstances.