House of Commons

[Shaker]

No one in the house actually questioned those figures

Yes, and that's a bit of a problem.

[Hope]

No one in the house actually questioned those figures

Yes, and that's a bit of a problem.

Yes, it is, isn't it, Shaker.  This refers to a ComRes/CARE poll from the summer of 2014, as reported here:  http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/public-opinion/assisted-dying-public-opinion/  The reason why I have taken a bit of time finding this - what I believe is a primary source - is that there are a number of organisations with the 'CARE' tag, and I had tried all the ones I knew of without success. 

[jeremyp]

Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.

The administration of lots of things can go wrong.  Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?

In the meantime, many people are condemned to live their last few days/months/years in perpetual pain with no escape.  If we treated dogs that way, it would be called cruelty to animals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.

The administration of lots of things can go wrong.  Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?

Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.

[jeremyp]

Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.

The administration of lots of things can go wrong.  Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?

Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.

Do you drive a car? Driving cars can go wrong, sometimes fatally. Shouldn't we ban them or do you take the "what's a few deaths among friends" tack?

What about aeroplanes? surgery? crossing the road? climbing stairs? using vending machines? All these things must be banned because things can go wrong, or would you prefer to take the "what's a few deaths among friends" tack?

[Nearly Sane]

The  object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.

The administration of lots of things can go wrong.  Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?

Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.

Do you drive a car? Driving cars can go wrong, sometimes fatally.

A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.

[jeremyp]

The  object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.

We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.

[Nearly Sane]

The  object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.

We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.

Except the objective here will be death. The comparison is not only not apt, it is fatuous. I am a supporter of assisted suicide but this type of argument does a disservice to trying to win the argument.

[jeremyp]

A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.

Yes, but, in the case of an assisted suicide, somebody actually want to die and, in fact, the death results in that person being released from suffering. In principle, what's to object about that?

In practice, there is a risk that people who don't want to commit suicide get killed — murdered. However, in any activity, the risk of unintended deaths, even murders, argues for safeguards to be taken, not for the activity to be banned.

[jeremyp]

The  object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.

We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.

Except the objective here will be death.

Actually, the objective is to release people from suffering.

I am a supporter of assisted suicide but this type of argument does a disservice to trying to win the argument.

Why? It was not me who brought up the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing somebody who doesn't want to die, it was Gonners. If you want assisted suicide to become legal — as I do — this is an argument you have to face up to and counter. 

[Nearly Sane]

And you don't counteract arguments by specious analogies. Car driving has a risk of death as a side to it. It does not have the risk of the state assisting in murder. I would suggest the counter argument to the risk is a robust enough process to prevent it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.

Yes, but, in the case of an assisted suicide, somebody actually want to die and, in fact, the death results in that person being released from suffering. In principle, what's to object about that?

The safeguards were not acceptable against coercion.
Now if you could give a figure on how many deaths there would be due to coercion..............
Secondly we KNOW there are people who would want to broaden the parameters of this so there isn't a slippery slope argument here.
Thirdly why have palliative care to such a level if there is also a demand for a finance intensive system of assisted suicide.
Fourthly we would have doctors and nurses involved in legally sanctioned killing.

Now, while one has sympathy it comes down to safeguards.
The case for. I suspect was made by people not willing to entertain these and other concerns and in the end never had an answer.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal  killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal  killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.

Contentious. many would say there is a difference to killing and terminating life support......and that is a case which needs to be made.

There is a law against illegal killing with morphine, The key point is about sentencing where mercy and justice can be apportioned dependent on each case.

That seems optimum again one has to make the case that it isn't.

It is not an easy one but the case for is not helped by pleading stupidity or callousness of the opponents.

[Shaker]

It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.

No? As though it's not witless enough at ordinary times, just look how vile religion's contribution to the "debate" can be:

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1

[jeremyp]

And you don't counteract arguments by specious analogies.

If it was a specious analogy, you'd have a point, but it is not. 

The argument in opposition to assisted suicide is that people who do not want to commit suicide might get killed wrongly.

The argument is refuted by pointing out that we do not normally ban things just because there are risks, we try to mitigate the risks.  The activities I talked about are examples of us doing that.  The goal of the activity is irrelevant in this respect.

I would suggest the counter argument to the risk is a robust enough process to prevent it.

Precisely.  I'm pretty sure that is the point I was making.

[Shaker]

There is a law against illegal killing with morphine

But the doctrine of double effect is a pretty well openly acknowledged means of circumventing that law.

[Hope]

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1

Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster?  If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board.    As such, its not much different from many posters here.

[Shaker]

Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster?

It was one of the first things I did, though I feel soiled for having done so.

If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board.    As such, its not much different from many posters here.

I read the mission statement.

You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.

[jakswan]

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1

Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster?  If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board.    As such, its not much different from many posters here.

What are you suggesting its propaganda?

Its a view that has been expressed by a few Christians. The bitch Mother Teresa said 'Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.'

[Hope]

What are you suggesting its propaganda?

I suppose it depends on whether posts by the likes of those I mentioned in my post are deemed to be propaganda.

Its a view that has been expressed by a few Christians. The bitch Mother Teresa said 'Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.'

And its a view that has been expressed by 'a few' non-Christian non-religious people, jaks.  Does that make their opinion any better.

[Hope]

You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.

The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said.  Dogmatic, refusal to consider contradictory argument; mind you, they don't seem to rely on quite as openly abusive language as some here do.

[jakswan]

I suppose it depends on whether posts by the likes of those I mentioned in my post are deemed to be propaganda.

Say what, you think Ippy really is a Christian spouting propaganda?

And its a view that has been expressed by 'a few' non-Christian non-religious people, jaks.  Does that make their opinion any better.

What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?

[jakswan]

You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.

The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said.  Dogmatic, refusal to consider contradictory argument; mind you, they don't seem to rely on quite as openly abusive language as some here do.

LOL my irony meter just blew again!