|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 24, 2024 19:21:48 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop They'll get it through and progress to the next step, which will be the next of kin and eventually it will fall to some government medical board. Things like this always go through stages to allow the population to absorb and accept it. Perhaps it may happen did you ever see a film called Soylent Green when the earth was polluted and people lived on the streets and hungry , they could just walk in and the Government would bump them off |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 19:40:19 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop Yes I know, its a toothless attempt to kick the thing down the road for another 9 years. The only person who can end their lives is the one who could do it anyway. All we have added is a new method. Its cowardly, we need to help those who are unable to help themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 19:47:06 GMT
What you call mission creep, I call cowardice. Cowardice because for fear of the dark we would deny a large number of people autonomy over their own lives. Should we allow someone who wants to die, the right to die. Damned right we should. Assuming proper procedures are followed. You can call it Kevin if you want but it’s still mission creep. The fact that call it cowardice merely means that you want to virtue signal and be argumentative behind the mind zone . You have been around enough to have seen that good intentions tend to lead to not so good intentions. If you want it to be all about you then tell us that . If you want to have a rational debate about a very controversial and emotional subject then don’t insult views that might not suit your current emotional state . The word cowardice was not aimed at you (sorry you thought that) it was aimed at those who have offered this watered down weak version of the right to die. I do not think this is a subject for petty games and if you read my opening post you will see why. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 24, 2024 19:51:08 GMT
The Bill should it happen makes it quite clear the only person that can ask for Euthanasia is the person who wants to end their suffering their constant pain must be of sound enough mind to make that decision, a person who has dementia or mental illness would not be allowed to ask for it and must take the Medication to end their life themselves. No other person can full stop Yes I know, its a toothless attempt to kick the thing down the road for another 9 years. The only person who can end their lives is the one who could do it anyway. All we have added is a new method. Its cowardly, we need to help those who are unable to help themselves. My Mother had Dementia which progressed week by week she suffered for years , if I was allowed to decide for her to put her to sleep would I have done it ? could I have done it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2024 19:54:56 GMT
Personally I think that society will be as easy with it as it is with abortion .
I’ve heard a foetus being defined as a parasite and I fully expect a senile adult to be considered the same a generation or two after a ‘ right to die ‘ law is passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 19:56:43 GMT
From personal experience I can say that sometimes a matriarch is in a hospice, old people's home, care home and the like and the family can see the inheritance draining away quicker than the life draining away from the matriarch. At that point there could be an unethical pressure in favour of ending that person's life, which is unwarranted. The fact the matriarch's life does not seem worth living is not really relevant, as she will eventually die and may not be in a good mental state to make that decision for herself. There has to be some really strong safeguard in place to protect people from state approved murder. I do note that when there is a debate on capital punishment comes up, the argument is that one potential mistake means that there should never be capital punishment. Are the same people saying that one potential mistake should disqualify assisted suicide? I think not. It is always painful to see loved ones die. Hence my preference for a living will, rather than decision made by offspring. There is an opposite factor you missed, that of the decision of children who love their mum, to end her life. I would not want my boys to have to make that decision, to debate when I was gone far enough for them both to agree to kill me. What a dreadful thing to ask. Equally I don't want my boys to see me in the state my mums in. So I want the right to have the doctor approach my boys and say "It is the opinion of myself and another doctor that your dad has reached the condition set out in his living will and its time for you to say your final goodbyes. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 24, 2024 19:57:52 GMT
Yes I know, its a toothless attempt to kick the thing down the road for another 9 years. The only person who can end their lives is the one who could do it anyway. All we have added is a new method. Its cowardly, we need to help those who are unable to help themselves. My Mother had Dementia which progressed week by week she suffered for years , if I was allowed to decide for her to put her to sleep would I have done it ? could I have done it ? Exactly. See my post above. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 24, 2024 22:28:11 GMT
From personal experience I can say that sometimes a matriarch is in a hospice, old people's home, care home and the like and the family can see the inheritance draining away quicker than the life draining away from the matriarch. At that point there could be an unethical pressure in favour of ending that person's life, which is unwarranted. The fact the matriarch's life does not seem worth living is not really relevant, as she will eventually die and may not be in a good mental state to make that decision for herself. There has to be some really strong safeguard in place to protect people from state approved murder. I do note that when there is a debate on capital punishment comes up, the argument is that one potential mistake means that there should never be capital punishment. Are the same people saying that one potential mistake should disqualify assisted suicide? I think not. It is always painful to see loved ones die. Hence my preference for a living will, rather than decision made by offspring. There is an opposite factor you missed, that of the decision of children who love their mum, to end her life. I would not want my boys to have to make that decision, to debate when I was gone far enough for them both to agree to kill me. What a dreadful thing to ask. Equally I don't want my boys to see me in the state my mums in. So I want the right to have the doctor approach my boys and say "It is the opinion of myself and another doctor that your dad has reached the condition set out in his living will and its time for you to say your final goodbyes. I don't necessarily disagree but I can see an almighty public row the first time this happens and the sons disagree with the Doctors. The papers are going to be full of stories about the 'system' putting people to death against the wishes of the family. |
|
