To Die, To Sleep... to jail for anyone that helps

Ostriig on 15/8/2009 at 13:43

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

It is the possibility that allowing euthanasia might allow people to be coerced or otherwise killed without it being their express wish and their express wish alone.

Absolutely. And there's also the possibility that some fucker crawls from under the pub table one day, gets behind the wheel, and runs over some little old lady. But, naturally, there's no dispute against driver's licenses because, on a large social scale, the advantages outweigh the risks to a point it's not even worth considering. So, while you are right that that which you bolded is "the issue" from a government's standpoint, due to its political/propagandistic nature, and that it makes it unlikely to see euthanasia legalised, it does not make it "right", as an optimal social solution. The real issue, which cannot seem to penetrate past a wall of moral intolerance, political cowardice, and general cretinism, is whether the risks of abuse (and thus murder) are statistically that great to warrant the continued suffering of those who would benefit from legalised procedures for assisted death.

You have to bear in mind that while murder with the aid of euthanasia is never impossible, a thorough legal system can at least make it fairly improbable. But, like you said, such a perspective is unlikely to reach general public awareness and acceptance, and a big part in that is played by what Muzman pointed out.

Quote Posted by Muzman

That's the issue, sure, but there's plenty of "Do not travail in god's business, mortal. Your soul is at stake" at work. Which is why the opponents make no effort whatsoever to talk beyond that point about legal risk and help draft decent legislation. They only want it plainly forbidden.

This. The biggest hurdle does not consist of cautious lawmakers, but, yet again, hordes of religious fanatics and excessive moralfags who can't get a stiffy without picturing the way in which they manage to force their shitty retrograde beliefs upon other people. If the concept of ownership supported degrees of comparison, then surely any rational being would agree that the thing a person owns "most" is their life.

Thief13x on 15/8/2009 at 14:01

Quote Posted by Queue

how dare any lawmaker believe they have the right to deny such an individual the choice over one's life and eventual death.

They are?? Well, I guess if you're a radical who wants all the guns rounded up then yes.

That said, I think it's pretty sad that the state would try to regulate something like this. There's dying, and then there's dying with dignity. That's really what's being debated here in my opinion.

SubJeff on 15/8/2009 at 20:29

That's what team euthanasia say dude, but the real issue is the one I mention in my first post.

Quote Posted by Ostriig

There is a big difference.

Drink driving is illegal. Killing someone by dangerous driving, drunk or not, is illegal. Death in those situations is by accident.

We are talking about making a choice to kill. Euthanasia is not killing by accident, nor is it killing by not actively prolonging life (permitting death). It is outside the realms of justifiable killing by way of self defense.

The problem with euthanasia is that it is electing to actively end a life. Getting this concept incorporated into a law is a very difficult issue, which is why the death sentence is so controversial.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it in theory - but until someone shows me an absolutely fail safe method for delivering a service like this in practice its just no. I'm probably one of the few people on TTLG who has had people ask me to help them on their way so I think I'm well placed to understand the type of suffering people go through. Without a watertight framework it's just dangerous and wrong though. If only one person slipped through the net...

I feel the same about the death penalty. Theory, yes, but in practice, no.

The world isn't a perfect place.

Ostriig on 15/8/2009 at 22:43

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

There is a big difference.

Drink driving is illegal. Killing someone by dangerous driving, drunk or not, is illegal. Death in those situations is by accident.

Murdering someone by (tentatively) exploiting euthanasia legislation would also be illegal. When proven, like drunk or reckless driving, it is criminal act with an already existing category.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it in theory - but until someone shows me an absolutely fail safe method for delivering a service like this in practice its just no. I'm probably one of the few people on TTLG who has had people ask me to help them on their way so I think I'm well placed to understand the type of suffering people go through. Without a watertight framework it's just dangerous and wrong though. If only one person slipped through the net...

The world isn't a perfect place.

Exactly, it's not perfect. And you're arguing, no offense, an issue of principle against one of practicality, and that pertains to a perfect world. Yes, principally, just one person murdered with the aid of a flawed system is wrong, but, practically, not taking this risk puts very probably more people in a position of suffering. And we're talking about considerable suffering. Is that not more wrong? Admittedly, we're heading down a slippery slope towards statistics land here.

There is no "absolutely safe" method. But the issue is to gauge acceptable risks for the greater good, and to minimise them to whatever extent possible.

SD on 15/8/2009 at 23:13

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

The issue of assisted suicide in the UK is all about coercion atm.

Then it's not an issue, because coercion doesn't happen. It's a red herring, an invention of the anti-choice fascists who would deny us the option to end our lives at the time and in the manner of our choosing.

SubJeff on 16/8/2009 at 00:21

SD says it doesn't happen so it doesn't happen people. Never forget, SD says so, so it's so.

You'll always be a weeping sore on the face of reason won't you?

As Muzman has mentioned there have already been cases where people who have committed suicide have thought to have been coerced. To state that it just "doesn't happen" is naive in the extreme. Of course with you that goes without saying. Are you still reading the Daily Mail? I've told you - that thing will rot your brain. Seriously though, all the discussion about this at the moment ends of focusing on abuse of the system. It gets in all the medical press that you probably don't get because of course it will be doctors who are expected to do it. I for one will be a registered conscientious objector because frak that, that's not what I signed up for. Who are you going to get to do your dirty work for you if no one medical will? Can you answer me that?

And for the record SD, suicide is legal so you can end your life by any method you can get your hands on and at any time you want. Any time.

SD on 16/8/2009 at 00:53

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

SD says it doesn't happen so it doesn't happen people. Never forget, SD says so, so it's so.

SD doesn't say it doesn't happen - countries with euthanasia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/13/usa-healthandwellbeing) make sure it doesn't happen:

Quote:

When [Oregon] passed legislation in 1994 - finally implemented in 1997 - to make physician-assisted suicide legal, there were all manner of dire predictions: the old and tiresome, the poor and the marginalised would be wiped out; people in other states would pour in, demanding to be helped out of this world; the state's biggest city, Portland, would become the death city of America. There were nightmare memories of Jack Kevorkian, a maverick in Michigan who helped 130 people to kill themselves with no safeguards to speak of and was known as Doctor Death: he only came out of prison last year. Most importantly, there were fears that no one would bother with palliative care any more, because patients could simply be discontinued.

None of this has happened, although the British Medical Journal last week reported that doctors in Oregon prescribing lethal doses of barbiturates may on three occasions have administered them to people with clinical depression. In cases where there is any doubt, patients should be referred to a psychiatrist, just one of many safeguards that were built into the legislation: a request must be made twice, two weeks apart, to prevent someone in a fit of gloom signing something they might later regret, and the signature has to be witnessed by two people, only one of whom may be a relative, so no two avaricious offspring can shunt mom into her grave.

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

You'll always be a weeping sore on the face of reason won't you?

And you'll always be a dick. And in the light of the evidence I provided above, you're not exactly flying the flag for reason.

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

As Muzman has mentioned there have already been cases where people who have committed suicide have thought to have been coerced. To state that it just "doesn't happen" is naive in the extreme.

Naive? How many prosecutions have their been for coercing someone to end their life with medically-assisted suicide? "Thought to have been coerced" doesn't cut the mustard for me. Proof or it didn't happen.

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

of course it will be doctors who are expected to do it. I for one will be a registered conscientious objector because frak that, that's not what I signed up for. Who are you going to get to do your dirty work for you if no one medical will? Can you answer me that?

Not all doctors are fuckwits; some of them are actually in the medical profession to serve and help people rather than to boost their own egos.

And thanks for the usual patronising "I'm a doctor so therefore I know more about medical issues than you" speech; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) argument from authority is a logical fallacy, dontcha know.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that even if coercion was a factor in a small minority of euthanasia cases (and I would contend that if you want to induce someone to kill themself so you can get your grubby hands on their cash, attempting to get them to commit medically-assisted, doctor-certified suicide is probably the least efficient, most problematic way to do it), that's still no reason to deny that option to people.

Similrly, we don't ban sex because some people get coerced into sex, we don't ban abortions because some people may be coerced into abortions, we don't ban monetary transactions because some people get coerced into buying things they don't want... you know, if we banned every little thing that had the potential for abuse, we wouldn't be able to do diddly squat.

SubJeff on 16/8/2009 at 01:59

I'm all for safe guards that are infallible, and I realise that I'm being inflexible and unrealistic here but I don't think the payoff is worth it if someone slips through the net.

Quote:

Not all doctors are fuckwits; some of them are actually in the medical profession to serve and help people rather than to boost their own egos.

What is this supposed to mean? Because I would refuse to take part in euthanasia I'm somehow only in the profession to boost my ego? Cripes! I never realised. Enlighted by the SD. Just wow.

Also - shut up.

Quote:

And thanks for the usual patronising "I'm a doctor so therefore I know more about medical issues than you" speech;

a. I think you'll find I did no such thing. Evidence please or punch yourself in the nuts.

b. If I were a specialist in a particular area, medical or not, then your lovely little wiki link would mean balls all. I bet that's how you live your life - someone who has the the authority to tell you what for in a particular area is "automatically" wrong to you because they are an authority. pfffft. If you need this little rule to massage your fragile ego then just get over life ffs.

Quote:

medically-assisted, doctor-certified suicide is probably the least
efficient, most problematic way to do it

I agree that it wouldn't be easy. But it would be a "legal" way to do it. In fact the only legal way to do it.

Quote:

Similrly, we don't ban... ...if we banned every little thing that had the potential for abuse, we wouldn't be able to do diddly squat.

And if we didn't ban anything that had the potential for abuse we'd live in anarchy. There has to be a balance and I think great care has to be taken when considering killing someone.

I'll read your Guardian link later.

Vasquez on 16/8/2009 at 07:25

What puzzles me probably the most is this: When a pet gets old and sick and suffering, every (sane) person believes the humane thing to do is to let old Yeller out of his misery. And no one asks the pet how he feels about it.

When it's a person who's terminally ill and in horrible pain, with no hope of recovery, begging for help to end his/her life, anyone who helps is INHUMANE, a murderer.

If it's a person who would die anyway within the next month, two or six, I don't really even find the risk of coercion too serious, compared to the dignity of a good death.

SubJeff on 16/8/2009 at 10:20

I agree that a good death is very important. Its the chronic sufferers who would also argue that they would like to end it all that are more problematic, like the recent case we had here or a paralysed 20+ year old who left the country to die. Of course he could not kill himself so the case was slightly different, but you know what I mean.