Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that AB has clear indicated whether (were he to have the option) he would vote for a change to the law or oppose it. However his OP suggests that he clearly opposes allowing assisted dying. So either he'd follow that through in terms of voting to oppose in which case he'd be acting to restrict choice. Or alternatively he'd support on the basis of allowing others to exercise choice.

What seems disingenuous is to oppose but to claim not to be in the business of restricting choice - which is how I read his posts. But it is, of course, for him not you NS to actually tell us what he means.

Bit rich given you assumed what he meant, and yet despite me pointing out that it was uncertain based on the reasons I've given, you're continuing to assume  you are right  not dealing with any of the issues raised.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bit rich given you assumed what he meant, and yet despite me pointing out that it was uncertain based on the reasons I've given, you're continuing to assume  you are right  not dealing with any of the issues raised.

AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.

But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.

[Nearly Sane]

AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.

But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.

I think he probably does. And as pointed out I think your interpretation of cannot here makes no sense, is not a pain reading and even you think he doesn't mean that because of what you suspect his OP implies.

So a question back at you -  why are you attempting to use a interpretation you don't think he means as some sort of gotcha?

[jeremyp]

AB can speak for himself - if he thinks I've misinterpreted what he thinks then that is for him to correct, not for you.

But a question for you NS - do you really think that AB does not want to restrict the choices of those who may wish to choose to use assisted dying - specifically by wanting it to remain unlawful.

He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.

[ProfessorDavey]

He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.

Exactly - so he actively wants to restrict the freedom of individuals to choose assisted dying by continuing to make it unlawful.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think he probably does.

So he wants to restrict freedom to choose. Yup I agree that that is what he wants to do.

And as pointed out I think your interpretation of cannot here makes no sense, is not a pain reading and even you think he doesn't mean that because of what you suspect his OP implies.

So a question back at you -  why are you attempting to use a interpretation you don't think he means as some sort of gotcha?

I disagree - your interpretation seems to be naive and simplistic. Namely that there are only two options - either you cannot do something or you can't. But there is a whole load of grey between those extremes in the real world. Specifically things that societies put in place to prevent someone doing something even if that society cannot completely prevent them from doing so. Good examples are, of course, laws which make something illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment if you do it. Or even further active mechanisms to prevent someone being able to exercise a particular choice.

So if you claim that you cannot prevent someone doing something but support extreme societal pressures not to exercise that choice (the most extreme being threat of criminal sanction) then you are, in my mind, being disingenuous in the real world.

[Nearly Sane]

So he wants to restrict freedom to choose. Yup I agree that that is what he wants to do.
I disagree - your interpretation seems to be naive and simplistic. Namely that there are only two options - either you cannot do something or you can. But there is a whole load of grey between those extremes in the real world. Specifically things that societies put in place to prevent someone doing something even if that society cannot completely prevent them from doing so. Good examples are, of course, laws which make something illegal and subject to prosecution and punishment if you do it. Or even further active mechanisms to prevent someone being able to exercise a particular choice.

So if you claim that you cannot prevent someone doing something but support extreme societal pressures not to exercise that choice (the most extreme being threat of criminal sanction) then you are, in my mind, being disingenuous in the real world.

And as already covered, I think we all choose laws that restrict freedoms, and I doubt Alan is any different.


Alan is intelligent enough to know the difference between cannot and should not. You, it appears, are not.

[ProfessorDavey]

And as already covered, I think we all choose laws that restrict freedoms, and I doubt Alan is any different.

Not the point - we all support laws that restrict freedoms. But when we are doing so we need to be honest about what we are doing. I cannot stop people driving at 70mph in 30mph areas, but I support laws that make that activity illegal - I therefore support restricting the freedoms of people who want to drive at 70mph wherever and whenever they like.

What wouldn't be honest would be to support these laws but then imply that I do want to, or even cannot, restrict freedoms, because I am doing my darnedest to do exactly that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Alan is intelligent enough to know the difference between cannot and should not. You, it appears, are not.

Back in the real world there is a whole set of shades of grey between the two. And for someone who thinks someone should not do something and supports active restricts through the law to prevent them from doing so is clearly trying to do their level best to ensure that someone cannot exercise that freedom.

And let's be clear - a claim of freedom to do something that will land you in jail isn't really freedom is it. It is freedom in theory only, not freedom in practice.

[Nearly Sane]

Back in the real world there is a whole set of shades of grey between the two. And for someone who thinks someone should not do something and supports active restricts through the law to prevent them from doing so is clearly trying to do their level best to ensure that someone cannot exercise that freedom.

And let's be clear - a claim of freedom to do something that will land you in jail isn't really freedom is it. It is freedom in theory only, not freedom in practice.

Yes, Alan would be doing that but that isn't affected by your lack of intelligence and inability to understand cannot and should not have different contexts.

The thing I'm utterly baffled is that you seen to think this is some gotcha on Alan when it's purely dependent on your interpretation which even you don't believe in, hence your comment that you think Alan would vote against the bill.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that Alan's position is that he wouldn't choose assisted suicide for himself under any circumstances, due to his religious beliefs, but he accepts that others may have a different view. That seems reasonable to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems to me that Alan's position is that he wouldn't choose assisted suicide for himself under any circumstances, due to his religious beliefs, but he accepts that others may have a different view. That seems reasonable to me.

That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.

But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.

So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.

By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.

[Gordon]

That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.

But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.

So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.

By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.

My reading of what Alan said was that while he might prefer that assisted suicide was not an option he accepted that others had a different view: It didn't seem to me that he felt legislation that affects society at large should align with his religious views.

For me this isn't an academic issue: it's very real - and while at present I'm not certain it's for me there could come a point as my health declines (as it certainly will) due to cancer that it may become an option I'd like to at least consider.

[ProfessorDavey]

My reading of what Alan said was that while he might prefer that assisted suicide was not an option he accepted that others had a different view: I didn't seemed to me that he felt legislation that affects society at large should align with his religious views.

Unfortunately AB isn't entirely clear on his views but as JP suggests his stated opinion leads to infer that he is against changing the law. And if the law isn't changed people will not be able to have the freedom to choose that option, which would presumably align with their personal views (albeit not align with AB's views).

For me this isn't an academic issue: it's very real - and while at present I'm not certain it's for me there could come a point as my health declines (as it certainly will) due to cancer that it may become an option I'd like to at least consider.

I understand that Gordon and I want you (and others in a similar situation) to be able to consider this as an option for yourself. Which is why I support a change in the law.

What I don't understand is a position where a person claims to respect the views of others, but wants to restrict their freedoms to be able to follow their own conscience and make their own personal choice to use assisted dying. That isn't respecting the views of others.

[Gordon]

In #12 Alan said this;

I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.

It seems to me that he is talking about his personal outlook and approach and not about legislation.

[Nearly Sane]

That isn't unreasonable if you also afford those people the right to freely choose that option if that aligns with their views.

But that doesn't seem to be the position here - my understanding is that AB wants to be able not to choose assisted dying as this does not align with his views, but he does not want to allow others to be able to legally choose to use assisted dying if that is what they wish for.

So he wants his freedom to freely choose to be respected while wanting to restrict the freedoms of others (who hold a different view to him) preventing them from freely choosing assisted dying. So it is imposing his view on others.

By the way I cannot imagine anyone would support there reverse - in other words that AB should not be able to choose not to use assisted suicide.

Are you arguing that restricting freedoms for others is wrong? So there should be more restrictions on drug use?

[ProfessorDavey]

In #12 Alan said this;

It seems to me that he is talking about his personal outlook and approach and not about legislation.

But if you are opposing a change in the law to allow people to freely and lawfully choose assisted dying then you are imposing your views on others. If you do not want to impose your views on others you should support a change in the law to allow people to freely choose assisted dying or freely choose not to use assisted dying.

Problem is that AB seems to have run away from the discussion so we are unable to confirm whether he supports or opposes a change to the law.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you arguing that restricting freedoms for others is wrong? So there should be more restrictions on drug use?

I'm not - I'm arguing that if you restrict the freedoms of others you should be honest about it, as I was in my example on speeding. Not oppose changes to the law which would extend freedoms but then claim that you have no intention of restricting freedoms. That is disingenuous.

There are plenty of examples where I fully support a legislative position which restricts freedoms, but I'm clear that is what I support - restricting freedoms, usually because in my opinion restricting those freedoms for some conveys greater benefits (or even greater freedoms) on others.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not - I'm arguing that if you respect the freedoms of others you should be honest about it, as I was in my example on speeding. Not oppose changes to the law which would extend freedoms but then claim that you have no intention of restricting freedoms. That is disingenuous.

There are plenty of examples where I fully support a legislative position which restricts freedoms, but I'm clear that is what I support - restricting freedoms, usually because in my opinion restricting those freedoms for some conveys greater benefits (or even greater freedoms) on others.

And I think Alan is honest about it for the reasons explained, and why my interpretation is more reasonable as opposed to your interpretation which is a lazy gotcha. Just ask Alan what he would vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I think Alan is honest about it for the reasons explained, and why my interpretation is more reasonable as opposed to your interpretation which is a lazy gotcha.

I disagree - I think AB speaks warm words about not wanting to impose his views on others, but if he opposes a change to the law then that is clear what he is doing - wanting his views to be imposed on others.

Just ask Alan what he would vote.

That is what I have been doing, but AB seems to have vanished from the discussion - perhaps he isn't willing to be clear that he opposes a change to the law because to do so rather negates his claim not to want to impose his views on others.

So to be clear on a similar example.

Do I oppose changing the law to remove any speed restrictions on our roads - yup I do.

Do I recognise that the current legal position restricts the freedoms of drivers to drive at whatever speed they wish - sure do.

Do I want my view (that there should be speed restrictions) to be imposed on others - yup, absolutely, because in my view restricting those freedoms to drive at whatever speed is more beneficial to society and individuals that allowing complete freedom to drive at whatever speed.

[Nearly Sane]

As a devout Christian I could never contemplate a deliberate act to end my own life.

In God's eyes there would be two sins - the sin of despair on my part and the sin of murder on the person who does the act.
I have faith in God's promise to give us the strength and grace to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives if we put all our trust in Him.
And I would be able to offer up any pain and suffering during my last days as a prayer for whatever intention I choose, knowing that such prayers will be answered in wonderful ways.  So my last days will not be wasted and I will be well prepared to enter into God's kingdom when my earthly life comes to its natural end.

I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people, but I just wanted to share how I would deal with it from my Christian perspective.

Alan, when you get a chance and are logged in again could you for the benefit of Prof D and I, be an absolute darling, and explain what you mean by 'cannot impose my own views on others', and how you would vote on any bill were to be an MP? (See the rest of thread for the readons)

Thanks in advance, best wishes, NS.

[Dicky Underpants]

He's explicitly stated that he thinks assisting somebody to die is murder and contrary to God's will. I'm sure he wants it to remain unlawful.

I wonder if he would be happy with "not striving officiously to keep alive"? That at least would allow the situation for many individuals to be left in God's hands. I realise that this diverts attention from the specifics of the topic in question, which involves people - although often totally deprived of individual autonomy - managing to live on months or even years, when they would dearly wish for their suffering to cease through death as quickly as possible.

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if he would be happy with "not striving officiously to keep alive"? That at least would allow the situation for many individuals to be left in God's hands. I realise that this diverts attention from the specifics of the topic in question, which involves people - although often totally deprived of individual autonomy - managing to live on months or even years, when they would dearly wish for their suffering to cease through death as quickly as possible.

There's a lot of use in the current debate about this being a slippery slope with reference to the changes in Canadian legislation on it. If it is applied consistently, it would mean that DNRs have already started us down that slope, and indeed what is argued to be the excessive attempts at persuading people to sign up to DNrs is already an example of that slope. The argument then would surely imply that we should get rid of DNRs.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, when you get a chance and are logged in again could you for the benefit of Prof D and I, be an absolute darling, and explain what you mean by 'cannot impose my own views on others', and how you would vote on any bill were to be an MP? (See the rest of thread for the readons)

Thanks in advance, best wishes, NS.

So just to clarify,
We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.
What I was hoping to do was that by explaining my reasoning from a Christian perspective I might influence the reasoning of other people to reach what I consider to be the objective truth as seen in God's eyes - namely the sins of despair and murder.

If I were an MP I would certainly vote to keep assisted suicide unlawful as a means to help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls.

[Nearly Sane]

So just to clarify,
We cannot impose our own views on others because we all have the God given freedom to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.
What I was hoping to do was that by explaining my reasoning from a Christian perspective I might influence the reasoning of other people to reach what I consider to be the objective truth as seen in God's eyes - namely the sins of despair and murder.

If I were an MP I would certainly vote to keep assisted suicide unlawful as a means to help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls.

Thanks, Alan. As should be clear from the thread, I thought your meaning was pretty clear,  even though I disagree with it.