Only abortion is like abortion

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting article from Victoria Smith on he limits of using abortion as a comparable situation in arguments.


https://thecritic.co.uk/only-abortion-is-like-abortion/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting article from Victoria Smith on he limits of using abortion as a comparable situation in arguments.


https://thecritic.co.uk/only-abortion-is-like-abortion/

Ditto assisted dying?

[Nearly Sane]

Ditto assisted dying?

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Of you are suggesting that you have read and agree with the arguments in the article, then by definition that would be no
 If you are saying you disagree with them then ditto makes no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Of you are suggesting that you have read and agree with the arguments in the article, then by definition that would be no
 If you are saying you disagree with them then ditto makes no sense.

I merely agree that some issues have no convenient or close analogy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I merely agree that some issues have no convenient or close analogy.

Don't agree.

A consenting person requesting that a life support machine is turned off seems almost entirely analogous to assisted dying. Both involve the consent of an individual who wishes to die but cannot do so without the assistance of others. In both cases the death is as a direct result of the intervention and in both cases the assistance is required as the individual themselves is not in a position to take direction action themselves to allow them to die - they can only do so with assistance.

There are differences, however when we look at the details of the Bill going through parliament and what is already permitted under law.

The turning off of life support machine requires a direct intervention by a third party to ensure that the person dies - in other words someone other than the patient will turn off the machine. For assisted dying, although there is assistance to prescribe the medication, only the patient themselves would be permitted to take them - they cannot be administered by a third party.

The current law allows individuals to make advance directives allowing turning off of a life support machine under circumstances where they can no longer consent. That isn't the case for the proposed assisted dying - where the person must be competent both when they request and when they take the drugs.

The current law allows others to take decisions to turn off life support on behalf of a person who is not competent. The proposed assisted dying does not allow anyone other than a competent patient to take those decisions.

The current law on switching off of life support only required high court authorisation under 'difficult' cases - where a competent person is consenting for themselves they would not get involved. The proposed assisted dying bill requires high court authorisation in all cases, even when an analogous case (competent person consenting) would not require this for cessation of life support.

So while the fundamentals are pretty well identical - person wishes to die and cannot do so without direct/indirect third party intervention - the proposals are way more strict on assisted dying than cessation of life support.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't agree.

A consenting person requesting that a life support machine is turned off seems almost entirely analogous to assisted dying. Both involve the consent of an individual who wishes to die but cannot do so without the assistance of others. In both cases the death is as a direct result of the intervention and in both cases the assistance is required as the individual themselves is not in a position to take direction action themselves to allow them to die - they can only do so with assistance.

There are differences, however when we look at the details of the Bill going through parliament and what is already permitted under law.

The turning off of life support machine requires a direct intervention by a third party to ensure that the person dies - in other words someone other than the patient will turn off the machine. For assisted dying, although there is assistance to prescribe the medication, only the patient themselves would be permitted to take them - they cannot be administered by a third party.

The current law allows individuals to make advance directives allowing turning off of a life support machine under circumstances where they can no longer consent. That isn't the case for the proposed assisted dying - where the person must be competent both when they request and when they take the drugs.

The current law allows others to take decisions to turn off life support on behalf of a person who is not competent. The proposed assisted dying does not allow anyone other than a competent patient to take those decisions.

The current law on switching off of life support only required high court authorisation under 'difficult' cases - where a competent person is consenting for themselves they would not get involved. The proposed assisted dying bill requires high court authorisation in all cases, even when an analogous case (competent person consenting) would not require this for cessation of life support.

So while the fundamentals are pretty well identical - person wishes to die and cannot do so without direct/indirect third party intervention - the proposals are way more strict on assisted dying than cessation of life support.

No, one involves the ending of treatment to allow a natural end, the other involves administering a "poison" to kill.
It is important for you then to justify that the means of killing is not a poison or instrument. In withdrawal of treatment, there are no instruments.
Now, in the system of dying proposed, the patient administers the instrument. So the killing is suicide and therefore the practitioner arguably does not kill. Where the line is has been arbitrarily decided by the vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, one involves the ending of treatment to allow a natural end, the other involves administering a "poison" to kill.
It is important for you then to justify that the means of killing is not a poison or instrument. In withdrawal of treatment, there are no instruments.
Now, in the system of dying proposed, the patient administers the instrument. So the killing is suicide and therefore the practitioner arguably does not kill. Where the line is has been arbitrarily decided by the vote.

I'm going to move my reply to this to the assisted dying thread as it is more relevant there.

[Outrider]

No, one involves the ending of treatment to allow a natural end, the other involves administering a "poison" to kill.

Oh, look who just discovered the Trolley Problem series...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I merely agree that some issues have no convenient or close analogy.

That seems to miss the point that is made which that specifically abortion does not work as an analogy for other things. It's not a generalused case, it's specifically on abortion, and if you agree with the article you would then not seek to extend it to other things directly because that would then be disagreeing with the article.

If you want to make a case regarding assisted dying, then you do so from scratch, and On the assisted dying thread, where Prof D kindly moved his reply.

[ProfessorDavey]

That seems to miss the point that is made which that specifically abortion does not work as an analogy for other things. It's not a generalused case, it's specifically on abortion, and if you agree with the article you would then not seek to extend it to other things directly because that would then be disagreeing with the article.

I certainly understand that there are certain aspects of abortion, or rather pregnancy, that don't easily map onto other areas.

However, a lot of the debate on abortion has been about the balance between individual autonomy - the right for a woman to choose - and societal restrictions on choice. Those elements of the discussion do seem to me to map onto other debates, whether assisted dying or IVF or actually a range of other things where traditionally society has refused to allow choice, not least gay rights/marriage.

So although abortion may not be like anything else aspects of the debate are very similar to those in other contexts.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you want to make a case regarding assisted dying, then you do so from scratch, and On the assisted dying thread, where Prof D kindly moved his reply.

I agree - specific discussion on assisted dying should be on that thread, and Vlad had made the same killing vs letting die point there, which was why I moved my reply.