Euthanasia and assisted dying.

Just because there might be a possibility for abuse to occur doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Speaking for myself, if I needed help going to the toilet, eating & drinking, simply struggling to go for a walk then I wouldn't consider that the best quality of life. Some will need help doing all of these things and will have a great family support network which may make life better but some won't. Some would consider life needing help with these things not livable (I would but some people will be different).

Extending your life with a cocktail of medical drugs just so you can lie in your bed all day, watch TV and need help going to the toilet all whilst in pain will not be for everyone and should not be forced just for the sake of living because some people don't want life to be ended.

Regardless, the choice should be available, put in the required safeguards obviously.

Applies to people in pain too, I wasn't referring to the elderly in my post.

My point is just because a decision will open oportunities for abuse doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

That shows the abuse part is the problem, not the decision itself.

On the contrary - I understood just fine.

I’m quite aware of the difference between what is scaremongering based on personal opinions frequently based upon bias against religion vs objective analysis. It’s why in spite of being Catholic I can still acknowledge the shìtfcukery that the RCC perpetrated across Western Europe throughout the 20th century, and I can recognise when the OP is scaremongering about euthanasia being legislated for in other Western liberal democracies in Europe without needing to associate it with genocide perpetrated by one Western nation, and I’m familiar with the development of what are known as the Groningen Protocol in relation to legislating for minors to be euthanised.

I also don’t need to hark back to the results of previous referendums from almost a decade ago as though they are indicative of how the Irish electorate would vote today regarding changing the Constitution to permit euthanasia when one only needs to be cognisant of the results of the most recent referendums which sought to expand the definition of the Family in Irish law which would have benefited one-parent families, would have reduced care in the community for vulnerable people, and would have removed the provision in the Constitution that relates to the ideological belief that women’s place in Irish society is in the home.

Those are the things I would be looking at if I were attempting to be objective with regards to whether or not Irish society is ready to vote on permitting euthanasia, but the idea hasn’t even been explored by the Irish legislature yet, perhaps because unlike the UK and other jurisdictions where euthanasia has been introduced, the Irish economy isn’t totally in the shìtter yet, in spite of your earlier observation that you don’t think anyone could argue that overall quality of life has improved in the West over the last 20 years or so - nobody needs to, it has, and that can be demonstrated in numerous ways, whereas imagining that it hasn’t, and trying to promote that idea in Western society, is the kind of propaganda that can be used to rationalise legislating for euthanasia rather than forcing Government to address issues which are the cause of people’s suffering.

Certainly it’s possible to do both, but people rarely do one, let alone two things at the same time. It’s more often simply the case that different people will have different goals and objectives and ideas for what they want in society, and while it might be immediately convenient to allow people in favour of euthanasia to remove themselves from the gene pool, objectively speaking it’s probably not a good idea in the long run, really it would simply be unethical. But, if one is a proponent of liberal philosophy, I can see why euthanasia is attractive to them. It would probably take a bit more convincing before anyone would agree to kill another person though, because that’s what euthanasia is, as distinct from how these discussions usually play out with people professing how they would wish to be able to die on their terms - that’s suicide, not euthanasia, and I don’t imagine you need be made aware of the distinction.

I'm in full agreement, the fact there is no choice right now is worse then not introducing it because elder abuse might occur.

Sorry to hear about your friend and mother.

An issue could occur though - who is doing the job of injecting the person? Can't imagine people will be lining up for the position. Finding people who are willing to do the job could be tough.

This will go nicely with opt out organ donation.

The people doing it will be doctors. At least they be the ones deciding if a requests meet the criteria. It's not clear if its always doctors administering the fatal dose, or if that's delegated to nurses.

(Because thus isn't about letting people decide themselves: its about making it legal for doctors to prescribed fatal dose. People can already decide to kill themselves, its not a crime to do that any more.)

It's better than autocide or suicide-by-cop or train driver for sure.

But effective mental, physical and palliative care would be a lot better for society.

It's very difficult to convince a depressed teenager that suicide is a bad idea, if you also think its a good idea for their granny who has started to get inconvenient.

Thats not a reason to force people who cannot take care of themselves and are in long term dehabilating pain to suffer.

The craic with some conservatives is that they don’t imagine the zenith of social progress is granting the individual in society the freedom to kill themselves, let alone the idea that the individual can have someone else kill them if they so desire.

That’s the whole point of eugenics, not Conservatism. Eugenics as a philosophical concept is not peculiar to any particular political philosophy, it has been promoted at various times throughout the history of human civilisation and across cultures as a means of advancing humanity towards its proponents aims for society, generally by associating people with socially undesirable characteristics and arguing for the elimination of those people in order to alleviate human suffering and misery, more generally aimed at people living in poverty who hold conservative values, as though attempting to eliminate a class of people from society leads to less suffering and misery for those who are forced to ‘endure’ constant reminders of their existence.

What sort of a loaded question is that, as though people killing themselves reduces overwhelming pain and misery suffered by some on the planet? I shouldn’t need to state the obvious, but there’s no coming back from what seemed like a good idea at the time.

The plebs need to be kept in their place.

Religion used to largely fulfil this role but the disgrace of the Church put an end to that. Since then we've had a lot of questions get asked along with some liberating improvements to Ireland's constitution to boot.

Conservatism is ultimately an ideology about the self. Nothing matters but oneself and this is wrapped up in various guises. Conservatives only want rules to be applied to other people and only care about something when it affects them. Marriage is sacred but it's fine when I cheat and if I do, abortion is fine in that case and that case only.

It's basically a grift and Donald Trump, for all his flaws, has exposed it quite clearly.

Conservatism is ultimately an ideology about the self.

That’s a very different understanding of Conservatism from what Conservatism actually is, and a particularly perplexing understanding while advocating for euthanasia!

and again, it is in fact the person choosing to end their life, not us!

how do you chose to alleviate the suffering of others?

great, so you know what it actually feels like to watch a person suffer, how did/do you manage the trauma you experienced from such experiences?