Anyone else done an Archbishop ?

[MrGongGong]

It is about being merciful to those who are dying in great pain.

That (of course) is a statement of opinion rather than fact.

[french frank]

That (of course) is a statement of opinion rather than fact.

In what sense? The dying? Or the pain?

[teamsaint]

That (of course) is a statement of opinion rather than fact.

seperating opinions from facts isn't always very easy.

I have to say , though,my strong tendency is to agree with you on this subject.
There are just so many people who are so vulnerable, in times where the outside pressures far too often are about money, and easy solutions to complex problems.

Just looks like another area where we should learn from the Saville/Harris events , that institutions are all too fallible, and people within them are often all too easily able to exploit those fallibilities.

If assisted suicide were to be allowed, I would want very, very strict controls, and a hell of a lot of hoops to jump through.

[P. G. Tipps]

It's not my preference. It's the definitions of 'assisted suicide' as against 'assisted dying'. You won't like either, and regard the second as on your 'slippery slope' to the first. But you weaken your argument by prematurely giving it a hefty shove down the slope to make your point. .

And the term 'slippery slope' is hardly a novel concept devised by P. G. Tipps ... and nothing here requires any extra shove from me!

Of course Lord Falconer can call his bill 'assisted dying' to make it all sound more morally acceptable. His opponents could just as well call it 'murder' which it still is in law! So what was 'murder' yesterday could well be a legal common practice tomorrow.. That is a huge moral leap whatever the noble Lord (his official title?) likes to call it.

The Bill of 'the good Lord Falconer' is about 'assisted dying': it is not about assisting people who happen to want, for various reasons and at a particular moment, to commit suicide. It is about being merciful to those who are dying in great pain.

Yes, we know all that whatever we prefer to call it!

Are you seriously suggesting that things will end there and 'assisted dying' won't be extended eventually to other groups? Why not severely-disabled people who are not dying but in great pain, for example? Why shouldn't they have similar 'rights' if they wish to end things. And so on, and so on ...

You can put your trust and faith in Lord Falconer & Co's assurances if you wish but, sadly, human history suggests that faith might be somewhat misplaced.

[french frank]

This is what Dignity in Dying says about the Bill. You don't have to read it, or discuss what it says, or support it, or believe what it says.

[jean]

And the term 'slippery slope' is hardly a novel concept devised by P. G. Tipps...

No, it's a common fallacy.

[MrGongGong]

In what sense? The dying? Or the pain?

The word "merciful" ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Are you seriously suggesting that things will end there and 'assisted dying' won't be extended eventually to other groups? Why not severely-disabled people who are not dying but in great pain, for example? Why shouldn't they have similar 'rights' if they wish to end things.

I personally would have no problem with that, as long as the one in unbearable pain could not have that pain alleviated and parties transparently agreed; I would prefer it that the person be put in a permanent coma than assisted in dying, as that course of action wouild remove any chance of alleged coercion to die, but TBH I don't know enough about care to know if that is always possible. In the end (sic) it's always a question of where to draw the line, and I wouldn't have thought that determining the line would be beyond devising.

And so on, and so on ...

Well you say and so on, reinterating the slippery slope argument, whereas I would say: thus far and no further. Maybe I'm just lacking in imagination or something.

[P. G. Tipps]

This is what Dignity in Dying says about the Bill. You don't have to read it, or discuss what it says, or support it, or believe what it says.

I think all of us are pretty much aware of the main arguments on both sides as they have been now argued to death (no pun intended).

However, I find the insistence that everything will end up exactly as Lord Falconer claims it will particularly unconvincing!

I'll now leave it at that.

[Flosshilde]

Last Word Syndrome?

[french frank]

The word "merciful" ?

Quite right. It's a matter of opinion as to whether wanting to relieve a dying person's unbearable pain is 'merciful'. At least it's easier to dispel the spectre of Dr Death hovering with his lethal injection.

[MrGongGong]

Quite right. It's a matter of opinion as to whether wanting to relieve a dying person's unbearable pain is 'merciful'. At least it's easier to dispel the spectre of Dr Death hovering with his lethal injection.

Killing someone is an interesting way of "relieving" pain.
You mean like that nice Dr Shipman ? what some people appear to want is what he was doing, loved by his patients.

[Petrushka]

Well you say and so on, reinterating the slippery slope argument, whereas I would say: thus far and no further. Maybe I'm just lacking in imagination or something.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle once out! The problem here is that what was once thought 'unthinkable' suddenly becomes 'normal' and we thus move forward to considering something else as 'unthinkable'.

Fully with PG Tipps and Mr GG here.

There was a most interesting piece by Bernard Levin published in The Times on Dec 11 1989 called 'Under Patient's Orders - To Kill' but I can't find it on the web. I do have it in book form though. Well worth a read.

[Serial_Apologist]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle once out! The problem here is that what was once thought 'unthinkable' suddenly becomes 'normal' and we thus move forward to considering something else as 'unthinkable'.

Fully with PG Tipps and Mr GG here.

There was a most interesting piece by Bernard Levin published in The Times on Dec 11 1989 called 'Under Patient's Orders - To Kill' but I can't find it on the web. I do have it in book form though. Well worth a read.

Yes but the problem with that is, it's like saying, anything could happen; and that could apply to any situation. My problem is that I can't see what, in this situation we're discussing.

[jean]

...The problem here is that what was once thought 'unthinkable' suddenly becomes 'normal'...

Except that it used to be considered 'normal' to administer a quantity of drugs necessary for the relief of pain, even when it was known that such a dose would hasten death.

Ask any doctor past middle age.