LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBut many people felt the same way about homosexuality. A consenting adult not allowed to perform an act they wanted too, because someone else said no.Originally Posted by santa claus
But many people felt the same way about homosexuality. A consenting adult not allowed to perform an act they wanted too, because someone else said no.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Oh the irony. Can you restrain your blatant bias just slightly?
roachcoach (17-06-2011)
Erm yes, that's right.
Ok. But a lot of people don't want the law changed; and the law isn't necessarily wrong.
And whilst he is still with it, he could have a snuffing out party with the doctors and nurses he is burdening with taking his life.
Which shows that the law can change so when will your campaign for a change in the law on assisted suicide start? Or did it start and finish here?
Isn't the irony that you think opinion on this subject can be bias-free?
Those that want it changed want the option for something they want to be able to do themselves, and anybody that doesn't want to do it still doesn't gave to.
Those that don't want it changed don't want to do it and want to prevent others from doing it either.
He is not burdening any doctors or nurses with taking his life, because nobody but him is doing it. Why should doctors or nurses that don't want to be involved with assisted dying be forced to be? And indeed, it can be legislated to prevent that.
And actually, that remark of yours highlights one of the side effects of the "anti" stance. It doesn't stop anyone determined enough from going through with this. It just forces then to die earlier than need be, earlier than they otherwise would, precisely to act while they still can.
There is a large percentage of the medical profession that's against assisted dying. Fine, don't assist. But there are a lot of doctors and nurses that view it as compassionate IF it's what the patient wants. And, an 'accidental' morphine overdose has not exactly been unknown over the years, and I don't mean Shipman.
But all that really requires doctors is an assessment of of mental capacity, a requirement made of them in many other situations, not least the Mental Capacity Act, or for compulsory treatment/detention under the Mental Health Act. If someone has the mental capacity under law to make this decision, then from that point, it's none of the doctor's business what decision they make. Nor, that decision being made, does it require a doctor to give an individual one drink, then another.
As for the "party", do you seriously think anyone sees this as a joyful occasion, to be made light of?
And as for doing it while he's still with it, first, as I've already said, this principle is already established in existing law, under the Mental Capacity Act, because that allows a decision to be made while you still have the capacity that prevents doctors from administering treatment you don't want if you lose the capacity, even if that treatment would save your life.
And doctors already make decisions that will result in a patient's death by withholding treatment that would result in the patient's continued living, such as abiding by a DNR, or deciding not to resuscitate when they could, because all that will happen is the patient will suffer a bit more, then die again.
Doctors that are capable of deciding to withhold life-saving or life-restoring treatment because, in their opinion, the condition of that life is so bad as to not justify it are being awfully flaming precious if they then decide to inflict that suffering on a mentally capable patient that has expressed a clear, consistent and persistent desire to end their suffering, by not handing over a drink that the patient then has to actively drink, knowing full well what will happen if they do.
Define "a lot".
YouGov polled on this recently. 13% wanted the law to stay as it is. 75% wanted the law amended so some people such as doctors and/or close relatives to be able to "assist", and 7% wanted the law abolished altogether. 5% didn't know. That's more than 6 to 1 in favour of change, of those that expressed an opinion.
Sure, it's one poll, and a small one. So how about holding a lot more polls? Or better yet, how about a referendum? Because if that kind of ratio holds up, any government that wants to "listen" just might decide to act. Right now, with all the unpopular stuff going on , I wouldn't be too surprised if they gratefully grabbed at a popular topic ..... especially if it poked a stick at Rowan Williams, after his speech moaning about "radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted".
Oh, and poll after poll shows that scale of opinion. The 2008 version was 69% for change and 19% against, and for about 25 years (or more) poll after poll has shown opinion to be of the order of 70-85% in favour. If you look at polls among the medical profession you get a different result, more of less reversed. A Royal College of Physicians poll showed 73% against a change in the law .... which leave 27%!
What we have here certainly appears to be the tail wagging the dog, largely because politicians have lacked the balls to tackle this properly.
And what's suggestive is that time after time, people do help, do go to Dignitas with relatives and never seem to get prosecuted.
All the evidence I can find suggest that this is a change with very strong popular support, and even a significant if minority core of support among doctors. Even among medical professionals, it's a topic of some argument, with wide-ranging issues. Some doctors are against because of legal issues, some are against because they consider it to be a case of doing harm, but there are also those that argue that preventing a dignified and controlled exit does more harm to both patient and grieving relatives than it prevents.
For me, though, it's simple. If I ever wind up needing this option, I regard it as my right to decide if I live or die, and nobody else has the right to say otherwise. And as long as I have the mental capacity to make that decision, it is my decision, right now. So why make me either go to Switzerland, or risk the pain of a home-brew attempt that may go wrong when it could be simple, dignified and efficient?
Because some people in this country we have a long, sad history of pushing how they think others should live their private lives and think it is their god given right to ram their values down their throats and when it doesn't work, they try and have legislation drawn up to enforce it.
Do as I say not as I do is practically the national motto and it sickens me.
Last edited by roachcoach; 17-06-2011 at 08:45 AM.
Well its an interesting one because personally I've only had one family member (in the whole extended family too) die a death that was slow & painful. The rest have a nack of living out a good life despite sometimes major setbacks, as such I do think its important that people on the indevidual cases don't give up hope. As you have seen one of my bug bears is people too stupid to use maths properly, in particular statistics, a good example would be telling someone they have a 1% chance of survival. Historically over the last 6 months 99% of people who had that illness died, but to get that 1% to live you have to try in each case.
If you have any kind of precedent that stops people trying, that will of course make that 1% a 0%.
I'm not saying people like my grandfarther who were given a 6-12months to live, and managed another 50 years should be encouraged to not give it a try.
But on the other hand there are the cases where someone knows they are going to suffer greatly, with no hope of recovery, and no hope of having a good life. They can make arrangements whilst they are still able to end it, so that if it gets bad they have a way out.
This is the crux of the matter, where the line is. You clearly have the "its OK to impose my views on your life" which I think is morally dangerous, thou sometimes required (as mentioned in previous post with abuse victims). I don't think its OK to start promoting it and encouraging it.
And that is where the problem is, in the same way I don't think gambling in principle should be advertised so heavily, I'm not going to start saying it should be outlawed, as if someone wants to loose money its better they have the information of the best odds.
If someone wants to end their life the option should be available for all, not just the wealthy few as it currently stands. The question of how to go about doing that, I don't think I have the awnser to, its not something I've experience of, thankfully.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The issue was discussed on Question Time last night (32:40).
All the senior government officials including Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister (SNP), Lord Forsyth (Conservative), Margaret Curran MP (Labour) and Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary (Libdem) agree with me.
Some bloke, Tom Hunter, a businessman, agreed with you. Looks like assisted death is a sound business decision so its easy to understand its popularity here.
QT revealed a cross-party consensus so neither Terry, nor you, will be getting your way in the near future.
I rest my case yer honour.
Politicians being **** scared of manning up and doing the right thing even it it is not "popular" isn't a shocker.
No one can comprehend this unless they've been through it. Which means, on laws of averages the majority will oppose it on "moral" grounds whilst not having the first idea what it actually inflicts on people. But I guess that's ok right? Imposing things on other people when they have not the first goddamned clue what they are doing.
We don't let animals live like that, but it's ok to force other people to because a bunch of people it doesn't affect 'think' it is for the best? It has NOTHING to do with them.
Stop the planet I want the hell off.
Footnote: You know, if the symptoms of these diseases were used on people as an "interrogation technique" - I wonder where the same people advocating living like forever that would sit...Would you be happy with that, or do you think it would be inhumane?
That is, first, a mis-representation of what many of them said. For most of them, their position was .... guarded and hedged with caveats. Second, it reflects what I said earlier .... politicians don't, or at least haven't so far, had the balls to tackle this one. But then they used to fight shy of immigration policies for fear of being called racist, and they got over that when they realised that the public were getting rather irate with them about it. Even the most bone-headed politician realises that, ultimately, the public elect them.The issue was discussed on Question Time last night (32:40).
All the senior government officials including Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister (SNP), Lord Forsyth (Conservative), Margaret Curran MP (Labour) and Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary (Libdem) agree with me.
Some bloke, Tom Hunter, a businessman, agreed with you. Looks like assisted death is a sound business decision so its easy to understand its popularity here.
QT revealed a cross-party consensus so neither Terry, nor you, will be getting your way in the near future.
I rest my case yer honour
Will the law change any time soon? Dunno. Maybe, but I'm certainly not holding my breath. But all that polling data suggests rather strongly that if it doesn't, this is yet another example of the con-job that it is in calling our system a "democracy". But also, do you know what happens if you put water in a pressure cooker, block off any release valves and then slowly and steadily heat the contents. Sooner or later .... the lid blows off. It might take quite a while, but it's not a good idea to be standing near to it when it does.
I'll go back to the example of homosexuals. Because after all two guys buggering each other they are only hurting themselves (well depends who's the big spoon) but the government still said it was illegal.I rest my case yer honour
In fact the vast majority of the government said it was.
It is a good example of those who feel they have a right to impose their wills on others (which I'll be blunt makes one a grade a cun-harriet harmen) have a louder voice, and a louder shout than those who believe in individuals rights to choose but don't think the subject matter is special, because its never applied to them.
As such, most people didn't care that the government would persecute consenting adults just because they were gay, because after-all this was a small percentage of the population.
The fact your 'case' is based around suggesting those who sit on the fence agree with you lends credit to the notion you are one of those people who somehow knows better than the person living their life, yet has not the wisdom to think they might actually understand nothing.
And that is why you can't polarize someone like me in to being pro measures like this, its frankly far too complex, and I know far too little about it, I wont try and stop someone who has given it due consideration and thought thou, nor will I vote in favor of someone encouraging it.
A man who is living with it made a documentary about his personal experiences, you just dismissed them outright, then adjust your world view to back it up because its the status quo, this is normal in a way, the milgram experiments demonstrate this.
But for me, to be so dismissive to a persons wishes is frankly disgusting.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
roachcoach (17-06-2011)
An irrational, inaccurate and if I might say, unworthy, statement.
It isn't a misrepresentation. It is a summary provided with a link to the full text. You saw fit to refer to a virtually insignificant poll earler, so I followed suit. Except this time I think you'll agree, the people concerned have given considerable thought to the issue before drawing their conclusion.
Who is trying to polarize your view? You don't even know what you think on the topic yet you manage to add a rambling screed that ends with 'Yours sincerely, A disgusted person'. Really, old chap, you are a one.
Is it really? How many of the people you listed have first hand experience living with and supporting people with these diseases?
How many people arguing against it at all have? I venture the minority and they are very fortunate for that. However, whilst that makes them fortunate, it also makes them grossly unqualified to comment on it.
Again: We don't let animals live like this, in fact, we jail people who let animals live like this.
I don't know how many have first hand experience, do you?
I don't know how many arguing against it at all have, do you?
I do know that when there are difficult decisions to be made, we have elected leaders.
I don't see how they are unqualified to comment. Experience isn't a pre-requisite of knowledge.
Only wisdom.
Willing to bet zero, they'd have used it if they had. Politicians are scummy like that.
Willing to bet (significantly more than above) on a single figure percentage, if even that.
Didn't catch that in the manifesto. Would expect some research to be done as opposed to "I don't like it". These 'elected leaders' are too cowardly to put it to the test, they fear upsetting the status quo, they are more interested in their jobs than doing the right thing.
In this circumstance, experience is crucial, without it anyone commenting is just pontificating on matters they simply do not understand and could not comprehend. Knowledge of what happens is one thing, watching it unfold before your eyes it quite another and no book can ever give that kind of perspective.
I have one thing to say to those commenting on this with no experience, from the comfort of their armchairs: Try it, just try it.
They seem wise to me.
You can't make an argument on the basis of presumption and guesswork. Nor do I feel it is fair to call politicians 'cowards' for addressing a very difficult subject. I disagree that experience is crucial but if you think I am comfortable in my armchair without experience, then you're wrong.
That's all your assumptions dismissed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote