Where do you stand on legalising assisted death?

cymbaline wrote: »

The video footage of a heartbroken Tony Nicklinson being told that he had lost his case is one of the most harrowing things I have seen in quite a while. It genuinely rattled me and is still haunting me. I think any person who thinks that life should be sustained at all costs should be sat down in front of a screen and shown the utter desolation on that man's face.

I just watched that video after you said cymbaline

my god

I honestly believe that any person even if they are in perfect health should be abel to exercise their free will and decide how and when they want to die.

There's too much grey area surrounding the topic.

If this was brought in it would completely change healthcare in Ireland.

By what accounts do you determine the merits/disadvantages of legalising this, by what arbiter do you measure the rights and wrongs? I would evaluate it under the ethical system of principlism. Let's just look briefly at this under the heading of justice, if I may.

In terms of justice, we look at the social benefits and burdens associated with euthanasia. This has become known as the ‘Slippery Slope’ argument. Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would involve serious risk of abuse, and on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. These negative consequences would not occur immediately, but would grow incrementally over time. Society might start by carefully restricting the patients who can qualify for assisted suicide, but these restrictions would be revised and expanded over time, with ever increasing possibilities in the system for unjustified killing. Unscrupulous persons would learn how to abuse the system, just as they do with methods of tax evasion that operate on the margins of the system of legitimate tax avoidance. Particular acts of assisted suicide may in particular circumstances be humane, compassionate and in everyone’s best interest, but a social policy that authorizes such acts would weaken moral restraints that we cannot easily replace, threatening practices that provide a basis of trust between patients and health care professionals.


Source: My thesis for undergraduate was on health law and ethics, and I had a chapter on this.

Where do you stand on legalising assisted death?

near the will reading

raftni wrote: »

There's too much grey area surrounding the topic.

If this was brought in it would completely change healthcare in Ireland.

By what accounts do you determine the merits/disadvantages of legalising this, by what arbiter do you measure the rights and wrongs? I would evaluate it under the ethical system of principlism. Let's just look briefly at this under the heading of justice, if I may.

In terms of justice, we look at the social benefits and burdens associated with euthanasia. This has become known as the ‘Slippery Slope’ argument. Although particular acts of active killing are sometimes morally justified, the social consequences of sanctioning practices of killing would involve serious risk of abuse, and on balance, would cause more harm than benefit. These negative consequences would not occur immediately, but would grow incrementally over time. Society might start by carefully restricting the patients who can qualify for assisted suicide, but these restrictions would be revised and expanded over time, with ever increasing possibilities in the system for unjustified killing. Unscrupulous persons would learn how to abuse the system, just as they do with methods of tax evasion that operate on the margins of the system of legitimate tax avoidance. Particular acts of assisted suicide may in particular circumstances be humane, compassionate and in everyone’s best interest, but a social policy that authorizes such acts would weaken moral restraints that we cannot easily replace, threatening practices that provide a basis of trust between patients and health care professionals.


Source: My thesis for undergraduate was on health law and ethics, and I had a chapter on this.

the value of life argument has always been brought forwards, to issues from contraception use/ abortion to drug use.

to me, is assumes people become dumb/ powerless as new laws are introduced. yes, law is powerful, and it can inhibit action but humans eventually get it right.


for me it's this.

If I was in a situation which greatly limited my control over my life, I would like to be allowed the choice to die or not.

Being allowed to choose it what being human is all about.

I dont understand how anyone could be totally against assisted death
I can see the argument thats made about who 'qualifies' for assisted death (hate to use the word qualify but all I could think of)


A person who is physically incapable of ending their life would certainly 'qualify' in my opinion (There is no standard of life. No cure. Even constant pain. They want things to end. but physically cannot) I would also include a person terminally ill in this case too. They are going to die. Let them die peacefully around friends and family.

But on the flip side, I see the argument. What qualifies and what doesnt qualify? ... For example, some 39yo guy gets divorced, kids taken off him, loses his job and wants to end it all. A person who could over-come his problems. Just in a rut. A person who is also physically capable of ending his own life. Should he be allowed? ... but of course, the counter-argument to that is that your body is the only one thing you truly own.