Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.

So let's break this down. Image there are two options X and Y (in this case X is choosing assisted dying towards the end of life and Y is choosing not to use assisted dying but different end of life options). Some people would prefer to choose X, others would prefer to choose Y. But that will only be a fully free choice if there is no coercion from societies of individuals nor sanction on the basis of choosing one option or the other. If society or individuals coerce or apply sanction then they are imposing their views on the individual choosing between X and Y. And those pressures might be subtle societal pressures that X is preferable to Y (or vice versa) but, of course the most draconian of pressures (and the greatest imposition of views on the person making the choice) is to declare that one of X or Y is unlawful and that if an individual chooses that option they may be prosecuted and jailed.

So any situation where one of X or Y is unlawful is a situation where societies are influencing the choices of individuals as those choices are no longer free choices, but subject to sanction and therefore the societal views are imposed on individuals. And, of course, if an individual supports X being unlawful as in their view X is wrong is also imposing their view (through retaining a draconian section on people choosing X).

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.

But that is clearly attempting to impose ones view on another. If you weren't attempting to impose your view AB, you would simple step back and allow the individual to choose freely without applying pressure to adhere to your view.

So if this is a situation where X and Y are considered equally valid under the law you might still attempt to impose your view on an individual to influence (or pressurise them) to follow the option that aligns with your view. But that isn't the case here as X is currently illegal and you want it to remain illegal. So not only do you want the greatest level of societal imposition of views - X being illegal, but also wish to attempt to impose your views directly in a manner attempting to influence an individual to choose Y.

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.

Of course you would AB, and I image were assisted dying to become legal and there was a opportunity to make it illegal again you'd vote to ban it. Which is, of course, the very clearest evidence that you want to, and would act to, impose your view (that X is wrong) on others by preventing them from freely choosing X without risk of severe sanction.

[Gordon]

As I understand it, any legislation on this issue that comes before MP's to be voted on will be on the basis of a 'free vote' since it is regarded as a matter of conscience - Alan regards the issue, for reasons he has outlined, as being unconscionable so of course he, if he were an MP, would vote against it (as no doubt some MP's will).

However, as a democrat, I'd imagine he accepts that his view may be a minority one and that legislation, with sufficient protections that deal with those who have conscientious objections, may well come to pass even if he preferred that it did not.

[Alan Burns]

Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.

I cannot possibly ignore the notion of God - you will never understand this from outside the Christian faith.

There was once a time when I supported abortion, and from a personal point of view I fully understand the advantages of assisted dying.  But in fully embracing the Christian faith my mind has been opened to the will of God and the nature of God's love - and how God's ways are not the ways of mankind and this material world.  Of course I know that God exists - I have a personal relationship with Him.

So I am not trying to impose my view, but simply witnessing to what I truly believe to be the will of God.

Not My will, but Yours be done   Matthew 26

[jeremyp]

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.

Of course, slippery slope arguments are fallacies.

[jeremyp]

Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.

But you can't. Alan firmly believes God to exist and that informs his opinions. Any argument you make that ignores this fact is a pointless waste of time.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, slippery slope arguments are fallacies.

If they are made in the simplistic sense of any initial decision inevitably leads to further decisions, yes. But the argument here is not just that rather it is that there are examples where an expansion of the idea on assisted dying has come about, Canada being the most cited example, and that there are a number of MPs who have openly stated that they aim to expand it.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Let's ignore the notion of god in this as we do not know whether god even exists.

So let's break this down. Image there are two options X and Y (in this case X is choosing assisted dying towards the end of life and Y is choosing not to use assisted dying but different end of life options). Some people would prefer to choose X, others would prefer to choose Y. But that will only be a fully free choice if there is no coercion from societies of individuals nor sanction on the basis of choosing one option or the other. If society or individuals coerce or apply sanction then they are imposing their views on the individual choosing between X and Y. And those pressures might be subtle societal pressures that X is preferable to Y (or vice versa) but, of course the most draconian of pressures (and the greatest imposition of views on the person making the choice) is to declare that one of X or Y is unlawful and that if an individual chooses that option they may be prosecuted and jailed.

So any situation where one of X or Y is unlawful is a situation where societies are influencing the choices of individuals as those choices are no longer free choices, but subject to sanction and therefore the societal views are imposed on individuals. And, of course, if an individual supports X being unlawful as in their view X is wrong is also imposing their view (through retaining a draconian section on people choosing X).
But that is clearly attempting to impose ones view on another. If you weren't attempting to impose your view AB, you would simple step back and allow the individual to choose freely without applying pressure to adhere to your view.

So if this is a situation where X and Y are considered equally valid under the law you might still attempt to impose your view on an individual to influence (or pressurise them) to follow the option that aligns with your view. But that isn't the case here as X is currently illegal and you want it to remain illegal. So not only do you want the greatest level of societal imposition of views - X being illegal, but also wish to attempt to impose your views directly in a manner attempting to influence an individual to choose Y.
Of course you would AB, and I image were assisted dying to become legal and there was a opportunity to make it illegal again you'd vote to ban it. Which is, of course, the very clearest evidence that you want to, and would act to, impose your view (that X is wrong) on others by preventing them from freely choosing X without risk of severe sanction.

That's a lot of words to (a) avoid accepting your interpretation of what Alan said was wrong, (b) that you were wrong to accuse him of trying to sugar coat his opposition and hiding that he would vote against the bill, and (c) that you were wrong to imply that he hadn't replied to clarify out of cowardice. A triple Lindy of wrongness.

Add to that the pointless statement in terms of having the discussion with Alan that we should ignore the question of whether god exists, and your post is just rather pathetic.

[jeremyp]

If they are made in the simplistic sense of any initial decision inevitably leads to further decisions, yes.

That's pretty much the definition.

But the argument here is not just that rather it is that there are examples where an expansion of the idea on assisted dying has come about, Canada being the most cited example, and that there are a number of MPs who have openly stated that they aim to expand it.

and that's pretty much the reason why it's a fallacy. Yes there may be expansion, but each new expansion must be argued and agreed on its own merits, unless you're going to argue that Canada made the first step and then blindly progressed further down the slope just because they made the first step.

[Nearly Sane]

That's pretty much the definition.

and that's pretty much the reason why it's a fallacy. Yes there may be expansion, but each new expansion must be argued and agreed on its own merits, unless you're going to argue that Canada made the first step and then blindly progressed further down the slope just because they made the first step.

If you can show there are cases where the progress happens, and that there was similar pressure there for the progress, then it's evidence that it is a possibility, not that it is inevitable but it's not a fallacy to point out that such cases exist.

The problem with simply saying it's a fallacy is that it precludes the evidence of such cases.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's a lot of words to (a) avoid accepting your interpretation of what Alan said was wrong, (b) that you were wrong to accuse him of trying to sugar coat his opposition and hiding that he would vote against the bill, and (c) that you were wrong to imply that he hadn't replied to clarify out of cowardice. A triple Lindy of wrongness.pathetic.

Do you bother to actually read my posts ... or AB's for that matter.

I wasn't wrong at all - firstly I suspected, albeit it hadn't been confirmed at that point, that AB would (if he had the chance) vote to maintain the position where assisted dying was illegal. AB has now clearly confirmed that I was right in my suspicions.

Secondly my interpretation of AB's position was that he does want to impose his views on others (despite his protestations that he didn't). Again I think I have been proved right as AB has confirmed firstly that he would vote in a manner which restricts the freedom of individuals to choose an option he disagrees with by ensuring it is illegal (imposing his view on others). Secondly his reason for doing so is because he wants to 'help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls', again clearly imposing his own views on others. And thirdly he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).

So AB is clearly wanting to impose his views on others, not just in one manner, but actually in three.

So, nope NS, I wasn't wrong in my interpretations of AB's earlier posts - I was spot on correct.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you bother to actually read my posts ... or AB's for that matter.

I wasn't wrong at all - firstly I suspected, albeit it hadn't been confirmed at that point, that AB would (if he had the chance) vote to maintain the position where assisted dying was illegal. AB has now clearly confirmed that I was right in my suspicions.

Secondly my interpretation of AB's position was that he does want to impose his views on others (despite his protestations that he didn't). Again I think I have been proved right as AB has confirmed firstly that he would vote in a manner which restricts the freedom of individuals to choose an option he disagrees with by ensuring it is illegal (imposing his view on others). Secondly his reason for doing so is because he wants to 'help prevent people committing such sinful acts for the sake of their own souls', again clearly imposing his own views on others. And thirdly he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).

So AB is clearly wanting to impose his views on others, not just in one manner, but actually in three.

So, nope NS, I wasn't wrong in my interpretations of AB's earlier posts - I was spot on correct.

No, you weren't. He explained what he meant and it was what I said. Nothing about a general position that he would never vote to restrict choices which was your interpretation of what he said.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, you weren't. He explained what he meant and it was what I said. Nothing about a general position that he would never vote to restrict choices which was your interpretation of what he said.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Dear oh dear - think you need to give your head a wobble NS!

[ProfessorDavey]

As I understand it, any legislation on this issue that comes before MP's to be voted on will be on the basis of a 'free vote' since it is regarded as a matter of conscience - Alan regards the issue, for reasons he has outlined, as being unconscionable so of course he, if he were an MP, would vote against it (as no doubt some MP's will).

Yes it will be a free vote - in which every MP are able to vote according to their conscience, uninhibited by any official party whipping.

But there is, actually, a bit of a challenge with conscience votes and a representative democracy. In most votes MPs are expected to vote on the basis of the agreed position of the party that they represented when they were elected. Accordingly voters should have a pretty clear view on what way they will vote on particular matters, either on a manifesto position or a broader understanding of the political positions of specific parties. And if an PM doesn't vote in that way they can expect to receive some level of sanction from their party.

But conscience matters aren't like that - I doubt many people when they vote have the slightest idea whether their prospective MP supports or opposes assisted dying (or other conscience vote positions) and this won't be set out in a manifesto (as it is a conscience vote). Nor is there a kind of default whereby you'd expect Labour MPs to vote one way and Tories another etc - these matters often don't break on party lines at all. So unless you have specifically asked the question and had it answered on an individual basis how can a voter vote on that basis and therefore to what extent is the vote of an MP in a conscience vote is consistent with representative democratic principles (on the basis that they were voted in by the electorate due to their position on the matter). And this is all the more challenging when there are many new MPs - at least when you have a long-standing MP you can look at their record of voting on similar matters in the past.

The trouble that we have in this context is that the 650 MPs appear very unrepresentative of the views out in the general public. Specifically that for quite some while there has been strong public support in favour (that now seems to have reached nearly 80%) but majority opposition in the commons.

The way around this in a truly democratic manner would be for MPs rather than voting on the matter specifically in a conscience vote, they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.

[Gordon]

Its seems to me that our system is such that the MPs we elect represent us, and in some cases they address issues that are matters of conscience as opposed to matters of conformance with manifesto commitments or with party politics - and if we don't like how where their conscience leads them then at the next election we can opt to not vote for them.

I can't see that it is practical to have a referendum each time a matter of conscience is being considered for legislation.

[Aruntraveller]

they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.

Yes, because that always works out for the best.

[ProfessorDavey]

Its seems to me that our system is such that the MPs we elect represent us, and in some cases they address issues that are matters of conscience as opposed to matters of conformance with manifesto commitments or with party politics - and if we don't like how where their conscience leads them then at the next election we can opt to not vote for them.

I can't see that it is practical to have a referendum each time a matter of conscience is being considered for legislation.

A couple of interesting pieces on the topic, one short and one rather long! (from an Australian context but their parliamentary system is pretty similar to ours):

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/saves/pages/48/attachments/original/1593487628/Conscience_Vote.pdf?1593487628
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1638&context=artspapers

I agree that referendums, although without doubt the most democratic way of dealing with such matters, wouldn't be practical (or certainly not under our tradition, the Swiss, well that's a different matter). And while I agree that you can vote out an MP if you don't like the conscience decisions they may have made, that may mean throwing out baby with bathwater if your MP is from a party whose policies you support, but whose conscience votes don't align with your view.

But I think the element that is particularly unsatisfactory is the uncertainty. In the last general election as far as I'm aware all major parties were broadly supportive of, at the very least providing parliamentary time, but often more directly positive from either party or leader position. So in other non-conscience situations you'd suspect with this level of broad support at party level that a change would happen. Yet in this case despite the supportive 'mood music' we really have no idea whether legislation would pass or not as we really have no idea of the 'conscience' make up of the 650 MPs.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, because that always works out for the best.

I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).

[Harrowby Hall]

Yes it will be a free vote - in which every MP are able to vote according to their conscience, uninhibited by any official party whipping.


The trouble that we have in this context is that the 650 MPs appear very unrepresentative of the views out in the general public. Specifically that for quite some while there has been strong public support in favour (that now seems to have reached nearly 80%) but majority opposition in the commons.

The way around this in a truly democratic manner would be for MPs rather than voting on the matter specifically in a conscience vote, they would vote to support a referendum on the matter which would be decided on the basis of broader public opinion.

So, where does this leave the opinion of Edmund Burke, in his famous address to the electors of Bristol?


Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

A couple of interesting pieces on the topic, one short and one rather long! (from an Australian context but their parliamentary system is pretty similar to ours):

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/saves/pages/48/attachments/original/1593487628/Conscience_Vote.pdf?1593487628
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1638&context=artspapers

I agree that referendums, although without doubt the most democratic way of dealing with such matters, wouldn't be practical (or certainly not under our tradition, the Swiss, well that's a different matter). And while I agree that you can vote out an MP if you don't like the conscience decisions they may have made, that may mean throwing out baby with bathwater if your MP is from a party whose policies you support, but whose conscience votes don't align with your view.

But I think the element that is particularly unsatisfactory is the uncertainty. In the last general election as far as I'm aware all major parties were broadly supportive of, at the very least providing parliamentary time, but often more directly positive from either party or leader position. So in other non-conscience situations you'd suspect with this level of broad support at party level that a change would happen. Yet in this case despite the supportive 'mood music' we really have no idea whether legislation would pass or not as we really have no idea of the 'conscience' make up of the 650 MPs.

The supportive mood music being amongst other things,  a PM who made a promise to a friend that it would be debated were he to become PM. Favours for the few, sometimes even without bribes.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).

And yet it was a referendum, and you want a referendum. That something is not exactly the same does not mean that it can't be compared.

[Aruntraveller]

I don't think this situation could be compared to Brexit - in that case the government did not want to make a change, but gambled on a referendum thinking it would nullify their right wing (which of course it didn't).

Not comparing it to Brexit.

I just don't like referanda (ums) never sure.

Say we had a referendum on the Death Penalty as that is also a conscience issue. Where would we be? Is that the result you would desire? I suspect not.

The electorate is too mercurial and lacks, as a body, comprehensive knowledge on these issues. We are governed more often than not by emotions, rather than carefully thought-out viewpoints.

Hard though it is to accept, our MP's at least have the availability of expert advice and can weigh things more dispassionately than your average Joe. Not always I know, but more often than we give them credit for.

[Alan Burns]

.....  he would attempt to influence people to agree with him rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience (also imposing his own view on others).

What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.

As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.

Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak.  And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.

As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.

Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak.  And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.

Which demonstrates again that you would look to impose your view on others rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience.

And you also indicated that were you to have the chance, were you an MP, you'd vote to keep assisted dying illegal. And I presume if assisted dying were made legal you'd vote to make it illegal given the chance. Demonstrating very clearly that you would impose your views on others.

Now I'm not saying that imposing your own views on others, including via legislation, is a bad thing. I gave my own example involving speed limits where I too would look to impose my view that speed limits should be in place on others who might consider that they should be able to drive at any speed.

Nope my issue is one of honesty - if you want to impose your views on others (as you do on assisted dying and I do on speed limits) don't pretend that you aren't in the business of imposing your views on others.

[Nearly Sane]

What I was trying to do was to encourage people to listen and act upon what their God given conscience deems to be the right thing to do.
There are two options involved here - one is to follow the self centred temptations of human thinking and the other is to seek the objective truth which comes through our gift of conscience from which our notions of right or wrong are discerned.

As I related in a previous post - my own personal logical analysis shows that assisted dying is a good thing in certain circumstances, but my conscience allows me to see that it is wrong in God's eyes.

Whether you believe in God or not, we all have a conscience through which God can speak.  And we all have the gift of free will to override our conscience to do what we want to do for whatever reason.

Again, Alan I disagree with most of this but for some reason Prof D has decided you are not being consistent because he has decided when you wrote that you cannot restrict people's choices this somehow meant that you wouldn't seek to do so influence people, or vote with your conscience. Despite you making clear that thar wasn't your meaning, he's ignoring that because that would mean he was wrong.


As regards what you  write here you seem to imply that your conscience is your god telling you what is right. And yet I know Christians who believe that their conscience tells them the opposite to you. Why are you right and why are they wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Which demonstrates again that you would look to impose your view on others rather than simply allowing them to follow their own conscience.

And you also indicated that were you to have the chance, were you an MP, you'd vote to keep assisted dying illegal. And I presume if assisted dying were made legal you'd vote to make it illegal given the chance. Demonstrating very clearly that you would impose your views on others.

Now I'm not saying that imposing your own views on others, including via legislation, is a bad thing. I gave my own example involving speed limits where I too would look to impose my view that speed limits should be in place on others who might consider that they should be able to drive at any speed.

Nope my issue is one of honesty - if you want to impose your views on others (as you do on assisted dying and I do on speed limits) don't pretend that you aren't in the business of imposing your views on others.

He's not. That's just your wrong interpretation of what he said which he has denied. Just how big is that hole you are digging for yourself? Can you see Arne Saknussemm yet?