http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-edward-downes
"The courts, which have said it is for parliament to change the law on assisted suicide, acknowledged prosecutions were unlikely after the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, decided last year that to prosecute the family of rugby player Daniel James, who also ended his life at Dignitas in Switzerland, was not in the public interest."
Are the politicians out of step with public opinion on this one?
What do people think of the slippery slope argument on this issue?
I'm ready to buy my ticket to Switzerland when there is nothing tolerable left of my life. I wouldn't want some moralistic politicians or priests telling me I should not do it.
Agreed, and if I were so bad that I needed assistance, I'd hope someone who loved me would help, as I would them.
I agree also. No-one asked me if I want to be here, so it's no-one else's business if I decide that I don't want to go on living any longer.
OTOH, I can see that there is the risk of undue pressure being placed on old and sick people to off themselves if their continued care is a financial burden to their offspring (or even if their sprogs just can't wait to inherit). So there is an argument for putting screening in place to make sure this doesn't happen.
No doubt we will eventually fudge towards some middle ground, with politicians resisting making such a tricky moral decision until it's reached the stage of merely tidying up the law to reflect actual practice.
As TW writes, the problem for politicians is deciding where the safeguards lie. Depressed, angry & manipulative teenagers would want access to this 'way out', people with financial problems, people who have had a catastrophic loss of self esteem etc etc.
For physically and mentally disabled and older people the argument could be that they are a drain on the countries resources, thus if they or their family cannot fund their care, why should the tax payer when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative.
On the other hand, if one limits access to people with proven terminal diseases, there is firstly the argument as to what is a terminal disease secondly, is this not depriving other perfectly rational people of their right to choose?
Life is a terminal disease - no-one ever survives.Originally Posted by Pebble
New definition of disease!
Disease ... lack of ease ... generally feeling crap ... looks like a fair description of life to me!
From the planet's point of view (assuming for the moment that there is such a thing) humanity is a disease - spreading uncontrollably, destroying other species and wrecking the environment. Furthermore, it's looking as if we could be that most stupid kind of disease - the type which causes so much damage to the body it inhabits that it destroys its own chance of survival.
I agree that it is a personal choice. I am sure if the time came, I would be perfectly willing and able to go down this road. The argument about abuse of the system - relatives encouraging suicide so they can inherit etc, is a legitimate one but I do see a certain irony here. Surely it is not beyond the wit of human kind (well lawyers if not humans) to come up with some form of protective regulatory framework to safeguard against abuse. The trouble is, all the time a government is in denial about these issues, then they will not consider such legislation. At the end of the day, I think this is all about politics (ie getting elected) rather than rationality.
Blimey - your not too optimistic then?
Politicians - who in this are simply reflecting most people's priorities - are extremely reluctant to face up to problems which won't hit home until some time in the future, but which require costly and quite drastic action now. That's where we are with climate change.
The really big problem with climate change is the time lag. It takes quite a while (I mean decades) for increases in CO2 levels to heat up the atmosphere; but once the extra CO2 is up there, it takes centuries to go away, so the planet keeps on slowly heating up. The same with sea-level rises; ice-cap melting only happens very slowly, but will go on for centuries with only a small rise in temperature.
Add all this together and there's a fair chance that we won't take the necessary action until it's too late to avoid major problems. In 2007 the IPCC forecast a global increase in temperature by the end of this century within the range 2 to 6 degrees, depending on what action we take to reduce CO2 output. Currently +2 degrees is the official, internationally-agreed target (but many climate scientists feel this is optimistic). This will lead to some problems. +4 degrees would be catastrophic with consequences which could mean much of the planet becoming uninhabitable due to drought. +6 degrees would be so devastating that humanity would struggle to survive at all, along with most other life above the bacterial level.
I suspect that, as usual, we will eventually respond sufficiently to avoid the worst-case scenario, but not enough to avoid some major problems. All rather academic as far as I'm concerned, since by the time it begins to bite I won't be around to see it. Unfortunately, that's a common attitude, and it could be an expensive one if it's held by decision makers.
I mean, it's bad enough the religious right in the USA believing that none of this environmental stuff matters because they're all going to be swept up to heaven in the Rapture, which is due any time soon...
I'm only slightly joking when I say this, but I wish there were easy suicide booths like in Futurama. Would solve a lot of overcrowding issues.
On a more serious note, I think the current proposal should have been passed. Deal with each stage of the "slippery slope" as it occurs. It seemsto criminalise this process on the basis that "one day this might lead to teenagers walking into suicide booths on our High Streets".
It could be argued that we already have some large "suicide roulette" booths; they're called hospitals. Thousands of people every year enter them for surgery and get killed off by infections they pick up in them. They don't usually get a lot of publicity, unlike the recent case of the wife of a former footballer.
Another form of suicide roulette seems to be owning a powerful motorcycle, judging by the regularity of the casualties reported in the Peak District near where I live. Any other suggestions?
I heard a depressing report of a woman who showed up to a hospital for (I think) a corneal transplant, and was told that they didn't have any suitable corneas available, but the doctor said something like "Don't worry. It's a rainy night so there should be a suitable biker in any time soon." -- apparently the ER slang for anyone riding a motor bike was "donor".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks