Assisted Suicide bill to be debated in parliament

[Alan Burns]

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?

One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong.  I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul. 

[Nearly Sane]

One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong.  I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul.

That's not answering the question at all.

[Aruntraveller]

One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong.

It occurs to me that all our trouble stems from this.

We all have a built-in sense of right and wrong. Just not the same built-in sense of right and wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

It occurs to me that all our trouble stems from this.

We all have a built-in sense of right and wrong. Just not the same built-in sense of right and wrong.

Yep, and Christoans believe different things on this as I asked Alan about and he just ignored it.

Also, there are cases like this one where I think the simplistic idea of right and wrong seem woefully inadequate.

[ProfessorDavey]

He's not. That's just your wrong interpretation of what he said which he has denied.

Of course he is - you seemed to be sucked into imbalanced perspectives biased towards the current orthodoxy.

So to test this let's do a thought experiment where we reverse things - a kind of reverse AB who adopts all the same approaches, the only difference being that this reverse-AB supports assisted dying and thinks current palliative care options are wrong.

So if the reverse-AB encountered someone whose personal end of life decision was to use palliative care rather than assisted dying he would use all his powers of persuasion to try to coerce them into using assisted dying. And he would justify this on the basis of his own personal views on assisted dying and palliative care rather than having due regard for the other person's view.

But the reverse-AB would go further - if he had the chance he would vote to make palliative care illegal so that no-one could legally choose it. Their only options would be assisted dying or dying in pain.

Now surely you'd conclude that this reverse-AB was imposing his views on others and that he was acting to restrict choice. I certainly would. And if you'd conclude that for the reverse-AB then surely you must conclude the same for AB, otherwise you'd be biasing your views on imposing views and restricting choice on the nature of that choice rather than the approach of AB/reverse-AB (which are identical).

Maybe some unconscious bias training is needed for you NS ... once you've given your head a wobble.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course he is - you seemed to be sucked into imbalanced perspectives biased towards the current orthodoxy.

So to test this let's do a thought experiment where we reverse things - a kind of reverse AB who adopts all the same approaches, the only difference being that this reverse-AB supports assisted dying and thinks current palliative care options are wrong.

So if the reverse-AB encountered someone whose personal end of life decision was to use palliative care rather than assisted dying he would use all his powers of persuasion to try to coerce them into using assisted dying. And he would justify this on the basis of his own personal views on assisted dying and palliative care rather than having due regard for the other person's view.

But the reverse-AB would go further - if he had the chance he would vote to make palliative care illegal so that no-one could legally choose it. Their only options would be assisted dying or dying in pain.

Now surely you'd conclude that this reverse-AB was imposing his views on others and that he was acting to restrict choice. I certainly would. And if you'd conclude that for the reverse-AB then surely you must conclude the same for AB, otherwise you'd be biasing your views on imposing views and restricting choice on the nature of that choice rather than the approach of AB/reverse-AB (which are identical).

Maybe some unconscious bias training is needed for you NS ... once you've given your head a wobble.

And you must have passed Saknussemm now. The point is that you continue to misinterpret Alan's point that he cannot make people think as he does to meaning that he should not try to persuade them or vote against the bill.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is that you continue to misinterpret Alan's point that he cannot make people think as he does to meaning that he should not try to persuade them or vote against the bill.

Yawn.

And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn.

And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.

Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.

What is being pointed out that when he wrote that he was unable to impose his views on others, he means, as I suggested, and as he has stated since that he could not change their minds.

He did not mean that he should not, note the difference between should not and cannot here, attempt to persuade, influence people, or vote against the bill.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.

Then you agree that AB is both attempting to impose his views on others and also were he to be given the opportunity would very effectively impose his views on others and restrict their choices by voting to ensure that one choice that people might wish to use is unavailable to them unless they break the law.

So thanks for confirming that I was right in my inferences all along.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is being pointed out that when he wrote that he was unable to impose his views on others, he means, as I suggested, and as he has stated since that he could not change their minds.

He did not mean that he should not, note the difference between should not and cannot here, attempt to persuade, influence people, or vote against the bill.

But imposing your views on another person isn't just about changing their minds. Indeed I don't think it is largely about that. To my mind someone imposes their views on another when they use methods that make that person act in a manner that doesn't align with their own views/conscience, without necessarily changing their view at all.

That involves putting in barriers (that might include sanctions or even rewards) which act to frustrate that person's ability to follow their own views and conscience such that the act in a manner that they wouldn't have done had they been allowed to follow their own conscience. Those barriers may involve pressure or coercion to act against their conscience or even putting in place legal barriers that prevent a person from following their own conscience unless they are prepared to break the law (which of course most people wouldn't be).

None of that requires the person to have actually changed their mind - nope it is about preventing someone from acting in accordance with their own views, but acting in accordance with the views of the person who is imposing.

[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.

So if everyone else is able to override their conscience, why not you AB.

Strikes me that double standards are at play here. Effectively that your conscience must take precedence over other drivers for decision-making. But others whose conscience leads them to a different conclusion should override their conscience. In other words conscience is only important where people agree with you, but should be overridden where people don't agree with you.

Hmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

But imposing your views on another person isn't just about changing their minds. Indeed I don't think it is largely about that. To my mind someone imposes their views on another when they use methods that make that person act in a manner that doesn't align with their own views/conscience, without necessarily changing their view at all.

That involves putting in barriers (that might include sanctions or even rewards) which act to frustrate that person's ability to follow their own views and conscience such that the act in a manner that they wouldn't have done had they been allowed to follow their own conscience. Those barriers may involve pressure or coercion to act against their conscience or even putting in place legal barriers that prevent a person from following their own conscience unless they are prepared to break the law (which of course most people wouldn't be).

None of that requires the person to have actually changed their mind - nope it is about preventing someone from acting in accordance with their own views, but acting in accordance with the views of the person who is imposing.

That's still irrelevant since ir's based in you reading Alan as saying he should not seek to change minds which he didn't - are you about coming up around the Chatham Islands?

[Nearly Sane]

Then you agree that AB is both attempting to impose his views on others and also were he to be given the opportunity would very effectively impose his views on others and restrict their choices by voting to ensure that one choice that people might wish to use is unavailable to them unless they break the law.

So thanks for confirming that I was right in my inferences all along.

But not your interpretation of what he was saying, nor your interpretation of what I was saying.

Your wrongness, and desperation to avoid it have worked as a derail of any case for assisted  dying as you've  wasted time and effort trying to get Alan on an irrelevant and incorrect gotcha. Very sad, really.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's still irrelevant since ir's based in you reading Alan as saying he should not seek to change minds which he didn't - are you about coming up around the Chatham Islands?

I think you need to actually go back and read what AB said in the post which kicked off my discussion on imposing views. What he said was:

'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'

But he can (in theory) and he would give the opportunity. Making something illegal because it conflicts with your views is without doubt imposing one's views on others. You seem to agree with this given reply 82. There is no doubt that there are many people whose conscience would allow them to use assisted dying and who would want to be given the opportunity to do so. What prevents them is that it is illegal and they are not willing to break the law, and critically to require others to break the law to assist them. So making something illegal is a pretty effective way of imposing your views on others - that is what AB would do given the chance.

How's the head wobbling coming on NS.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you need to actually go back and read what AB said in the post which kicked off my discussion on imposing views. What he said was:

'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'

But he can (in theory) and he would give the opportunity. Making something illegal because it conflicts with your views is without doubt imposing one's views on others. You seem to agree with this given reply 82. There is no doubt that there are many people whose conscience would allow them to use assisted dying and who would want to be given the opportunity to do so. What prevents them is that it is illegal and they are not willing to break the law, and critically to require others to break the law to assist them. So making something illegal is a pretty effective way of imposing your views on others - that is what AB would do given the chance.

How's the head wobbling coming on NS.

I'm very well aware of what he said, and I pointed out then that your interpretation was wrong, and he confirmed it but in your pathetic need to try and show up Alan, you've derailed the thread, wasted your chance to make the case for assisted dying, and exposed that your ego outweighs your ability to think and read.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm very well aware of what he said,

Seems unlikely as you keep posting as if he'd said something entirely different.

and I pointed out then that your interpretation was wrong

But my interpretation is exactly the same as your interpretation - see your post 82. Namely that if someone would vote to ban assisted dying on the basis of their own views (as AB later clearly confirmed) that they would be imposing their views on others.

Blimey your head will be spinning with all the wobbling you are going to need to give it.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems unlikely as you keep posting as if he'd said something entirely different.
But my interpretation is exactly the same as your interpretation - see your post 82. Namely that if someone would vote to ban assisted dying on the basis of their own views (as AB later clearly confirmed) that they would be imposing their views on others.

Blimey your head will be spinning with all the wobbling you are going to need to give it.

And again your reading and thinking is screwed up. Where your interpretation was wrong is in thinking that Alan'' ' cannot impose' was saying he should not vote for the bill or attempt to persuade people when he meant that he could not change their minds by force. He confirmed that you were wrong.

All of that is covered multiple times in the thread, and you've just ignored it.

I'm giving up now, if only to save you from using the head wobble line again, as it wasn't that good a line to start with and through overuse is now making you look tedious as well as sad.

[ProfessorDavey]

And again your reading and thinking is screwed up. Where your interpretation was wrong is in thinking that Alan'' ' cannot impose' was saying he should not vote for the bill or attempt to persuade people when he meant that he could not change their minds by force. He confirmed that.

All of that is covered multiple times in the thread, and you've just ignored it.

I'm giving up now, if only to save you from using the head wobble line again, as it wasn't that good a line to start with and through overuse is now making you look tedious as well as sad.

You are a nightmare NS - you are completely misinterpreting what I have been saying - and I worry that there isn't enough space down those rabbit holes where you have disappeared to be able to give your head a wobble.

So in reply 12 AB said:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'

I replied (reply 14 - my first post on this thread):
'So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.'

AB then confirmed, as we'd suspected, that he would indeed vote to ban assisted dying.

So in reply 81 I then posed to you the following:
'And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.'

This is basically exactly the same point I made back in reply 14 that you claimed was a misinterpretation. Yet your reply was (reply 82):
'Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.'

So in reply 82 you are basically agreeing with my interpretation of AB's comment that I'd made way back in reply14. Yet somehow you appear to think I'm wrong ... but you agree with me.

[Gordon]

An interesting read - a lot of what is he says chimes with my feelings on living with incurable cancer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/12/terminal-illness-assisted-dying-debate-mps

[Aruntraveller]

I also read this earlier. It is refreshing to read a viewpoint that is not black and white and recognises the many nuances involved.

Also very moving.

[Nearly Sane]

Very powerful article.

[Alan Burns]

You are a nightmare NS - you are completely misinterpreting what I have been saying - and I worry that there isn't enough space down those rabbit holes where you have disappeared to be able to give your head a wobble.

So in reply 12 AB said:
'I am well aware that I cannot impose my own views on other people ...'

I replied (reply 14 - my first post on this thread):
'So if you don't want to impose your views on others then I presume you would be in favour of a change in the law to make it an option to those that want it. Otherwise you are imposing your views, aren't you AB, as you'd be acting to prevent those with a different perspective to yours to be able to choose how they want to end their lives.'

AB then confirmed, as we'd suspected, that he would indeed vote to ban assisted dying.

So in reply 81 I then posed to you the following:
'And in doing so he will be attempting to impose his view on others and in the case of legislation rather effectively imposing his views on others. And by voting to make assisted dying illegal he'd be rather effectively restricting choice.'

This is basically exactly the same point I made back in reply 14 that you claimed was a misinterpretation. Yet your reply was (reply 82):
'Yes, he will be. Now read this and read it slowly, and read it again.

NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.'

So in reply 82 you are basically agreeing with my interpretation of AB's comment that I'd made way back in reply14. Yet somehow you appear to think I'm wrong ... but you agree with me.

Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone.  God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.

I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone.  God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.

I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.

Prof D would argue you 'impose your choice' by restricting choice, so while I think I understand what you mean, I'm not sure it's a helpful term here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to clarify my position once again,
It goes against my Christian faith to impose my views on anyone.

Then don't - allow people to freely choose, not just the option that you'd prefer, but also the one that you don't agree with. If there are two options X and Y and one of those choices is lawful, but the other is unlawful, then there isn't a free choice as one choice comes with a significant threat of legal sanction while the other doesn't.

God gave us the amazing gift of free will in order to enable us to freely choose to follow Him.

But there is no free choice if the option you think is right is lawful, while the option you don't like is unlawful. For there to be free choice an individual must be able to choose between the options freely, without coercion, pressure or sanction - and something being unlawful is pretty well the most severe sanction society can impose.

If you make one option legal and the other illegal then there is no free choice.

I would vote against assisted suicide in order to help protect vulnerable people from being coerced into ending their own lives by relatives who value their inheritance more than the lives of those they should love.

But what about someone who isn't being coerced, but genuinely and freely wishes to use assisted dying - by making it illegal you would not just be protecting vulnerable people, but also imposing your views and restricting the choice of those who aren't being coerced.

And while there is a lot of talk about protecting the vulnerable who might feel pressurised (and I agree there must be very significant safeguards) but what about protecting those who desperately want to die and would choose assisted dying were it legal, but are condemned to live their final days in pain and horrible distress against their most fervent wishes. Surely they are equally deserving of protection.

[jeremyp]

One thing humans have in common is an inbuilt sense of right and wrong.  I do not believe that this could emanate from physically determined material reactions, but that it is a God given attribute of our human soul.

Can you explain why different people have different ideas about what is right and wrong?

If our "inbuilt sense of right and wrong" comes from God, why do I disagree with you on the subject of assisted dying? I probably disagree with you on a number of other issues of right and wrong too. I doubt that we agree on the right of everybody to get married to the person they love or possibly abortion or a number of other moral issues.

I know my views on several of these issues have changed over the years as I've got more experience of the World and heard more viewpoints from other people. My sense of right and wrong is not inbuilt, it's learned.