The Netherlands has taken this argument to its logical conclusion. While the law there hasn’t changed in the 20-plus years since it was introduced, over time the interpretation of its criteria has,
So that’s about euthanasia. Here abortion requires 2 doctors to sign off – anyoine heard of anyone being denied that? It’s on demand.
And those laws that would only be used against the real baddies – they use RICO whenever they like these days. And on and on – of course these things get expanded.
Bernary Levin called it the Fallacy of the Altered Standpoint – he was right too.
Kocking someone off because they’ve depression, no, obviously not, don’t be absurd. But if you’re already at the point where you’ll knock someone off for being physically ill then why not?
And Canada too, where they execute you if you’re ‘ feeling a bit under the weather’.
Slippery slopes exist everywhere.
The article says that the bloke who will be our next PM is committed to allowing a vote on it. Obviously he could change his mind a few times in the next month, but that’s very worrying.
Sam Vara said:
“The bloke who will be our next PM is committed to allowing a vote on it”
Ah, is that how he’s going to get NHS waiting lists down? Euthanasia if you haven’t been seen within 6 weeks?
He does seem very proud of being “ruthless”, so…
It’s just posturing. The moderately wealthy can already afford to spend six months living in Switzerland in order to qualify for Dignitas and the bright can find what they need online. It’s if you are neither wealthy nor bright that the problems begin, which is true of everything.
He does seem very proud of being “ruthless”, so…
Ruthless enough to let his relatives die rather than use private health care in the name of equity or equality but not ruthless enough to forego his protected pension in the name of equity and equality.
One shot Derringers along with half bottles of whisky or brandy should be available on the NHS.
I don’t get this ‘I want to be euthanised’ malarkey. Or rather I get it if you are confined to a wheelchair, trapped in a body that doesn’t work any more and want to die. Or are so physically weak from some ailment you can’t do anything for yourself. But if you are a perfectly physically mobile person who is depressed, or has terminal cancer etc, and wants to die, well there’s tall buildings everywhere. If you REALLY want to die, you can, today. In a few minutes time if you hurry.
But jumping from a tall building or taking a bath with an open razor requires you to take personal responsibility for your decision and actions. Euthanasia allows you to pretend that somebody else is deciding for you, thus offloading the responsibility for your demise.
When you are euthanised there is no mess to clean up. Most people don’t really like stumbling across a suicide. That would be a factor for considerate people.
Remember when doctors were all like “first, do no harm”?
Good times.
Jim – I think I can answer that one. Suicidal thoughts can make you want to die so the pain will stop, but many people – hopefully most people – don’t have it in them to do the horrible things required to kill themselves.
It’s why it tends to be older blokes. According to ONS:
those aged 50 to 54 years had the highest suicide rate in 2022 (15.2 deaths per 100,000); consistent with 2021 (14.9 deaths per 100,000). Females aged 50 to 54 years also had the highest rate in 2022 (7.8 per 100,000).
Most of the suicidal guys I know are about that age. They’re men, so there’s a heightened chance they might jump off a building or something like that. Violently end it all. A woman might take an overdose instead, but even that is hard.
Medicalising suicide and presenting it as this lovely peaceful thing that’s going to be done by trained doctors takes away the burden of acting on that suicidal urge and places it in the hands of people who should be telling you to get psychiatric help. It’s a seductive get out for people trying to escape their own lives.
@Steve 10:31
That’s what I was trying to say but you did it better.
Mr Womby – thank you.
Kocking <sic) someone off because they’ve depression, no, obviously not, don’t be absurd. But if you’re already at the point where you’ll knock someone off for being physically ill then why not?
But that doesn’t reflect reality. Nobody’s “knocking anyone off”. The person’s choosing to knock themselves off. On demand euthenasia just assists them in a controlled manner. Part of it is as Rhoda says. You’re not leaving some other poor sod to clear up the horrible mess you’ve left.
It’s one of those curious subjects for supposed libertarians that proves libertarianism is a crock. Despite all the bollocks about personal responsibilities & freedom, they baulk at this one. Showing that most libertarians are as authoritarian as anyone else.
BiS – What freedoms do you think people enjoy after they’ve killed themselves?
I certainly hope that libertarianism isn’t in favour of encouraging mentally ill people to die. Death isn’t a lifestyle choice.
The local comp had another child try to kill himself recently. Thankfully he failed, but the last boy didn’t. What should we say to young people like that – “don’t worry, when you’re older you can go to Switzerland?”.
Grim.
So, the person chooses, then someone else knocks them off. Which means “Nobody’s knocking anyone off” is untrue.
BiS – What freedoms do you think people enjoy after they’ve killed themselves?
Since a “person” is a thinking organism that mentally is the sum of the memories of its experiences. And now that organism is no longer thinking, the person no longer exists. So what freedoms? There’s nothing there to be free.
One thing to be sure, euthenasia hasn’t harmed the person that’s been euthenised. Since there’s no longer a person there to have been harmed. The argument’s about everybody else, but.
Remember when doctors were all like “first, do no harm”?
Steve, can you please point me to the historical period when this was true?
So, the person chooses, then someone else knocks them off. Which means “Nobody’s knocking anyone off” is untrue.
The analogy would be if you put a gun to your head & pulled the trigger. Is the gun responsible for killing you? You going to put the gun on trial? The manufacturer?
Jim and Steve:
There’s also the horrible possibility that you won’t die, just get horribly maimed. What percentage of suicide attempts fail?
BiS – One thing to be sure, euthenasia hasn’t harmed the person that’s been euthenised.
Course it has harmed them, they’re dead. It also greatly harms their relatives and friends.
Since there’s no longer a person there to have been harmed. The argument’s about everybody else, but.
Sounds like an argument for murder.
So what freedoms? There’s nothing there to be free.
So there’s no libertarian argument for suicide, is there?
Philip – Steve, can you please point me to the historical period when this was true?
Anecdatal experience: NHS psychiatric staff are mostly wonderful people who want to help you. Midwives are also a good bunch.
M – What percentage of suicide attempts fail?
I don’t know the numbers, but it’s high. Even putting a gun in your mouth won’t necessarily kill you, although you may wish it had.
I see the defence in the Hunter Biden trial seem to be pursuing a similar cause. Because he was strung out on crack he wasn’t responsible for his actions & therefore not guilty.
Suicide is a very permanent solution to essentially temporary problems.
Obviously there are circumstances where medically assisted death might be better than the alternatives (debilitating terminal illnesses for which there is no cure and result in excessive/constant pain or dementia style “loss of self”).
The problem is that once the medical community gets the go ahead, they seem to see candidates everywhere the look (see “Liverpool Pathway” as an example), so the chances that a visit to a doctor for treatment becomes an invitation into the void is a bit too high.
We’ve seen it in Canada with MAID where instead of expensive treatment or care options, people are offered state sanctioned murder (seemingly as a cost-saving exercise as much as anything else).
Just imagine how quickly the nutters of “Our beloved NHS” would take to it if they were given the legal opportunity? It would make Dr. Shipman look like Florence Nightingale.
BiS – working from memory here, but I believe in one of the Nordic countries that went down this road with all the proper protections they’ve found that gradually more and more doctors admit to offing someone based on their (the doctor’s) decision that it was time for them to go. This isn’t necessarily decisive, but it does & will happen.
Funny bit about the “slippery slope” being a fallacy, a while back I read someone I like/respect (might have been Ridley) make the argument that “people said if we did A it would lead all the way to Z, and it did, but now we’re OK with Z”. Big difference between claiming that the State won’t get to off you if it considers you burden and saying that by the time we get there most people will accept it.
Yeah Steve, but how many suicide attempts are not actually suicide attempts. They expect to be “rescued”‘. So they want to be a person who attempted suicide for whatever reasons.
Seems pretty obvious that was the motive for someone I know, died last year. Died of a drug overdose. But it seems to be pretty well certain it was something she staged that went wrong. She expected to be found & wasn’t. People who want to top themselves aren’t generally making plans for the day after.
doctors admit to offing someone based on their (the doctor’s) decision that it was time for them to go.
Doesn’t mean it was the wrong decision though, does it?
I’m pretty sure it was the district nurse offed my father. She was giving him some sort of tranquilliser shots. One of the outcomes of which his fluid intake dropped to zero & the inevitable. He’d signed a DNR form in hospital but he was always somebody who was obsessed with what people thought of him so.. . um. Personally, I thought he’d be banging on the inside of the lid at crematorium. He could never accept he wasn’t immortal because he couldn’t handle the thought that he wasn’t . Or my mother for that matter. He really resented her having the selfishness to die. Theoretically they could have put a line in for IV fluids etc. But to what purpose? Couple of days?
That’s partially why I’m in favour of euthanasia. I don’t want to die with the memories of the final years of my own life. What’s the point? What are accumulating them for?
BiS – People who want to top themselves aren’t generally making plans for the day after.
Yarp, they’re mentally unwell.
What’s the point? What are accumulating them for?
The point of life is to live. If not for yourself, then as an act of sacrificial love for someone else.
I don’t know the numbers, but it’s high. Even putting a gun in your mouth won’t necessarily kill you, although you may wish it had.
General von Stulpnagel in 1944 is a good example. Although I think he may have put the gun to his temple.
The point of life is to live
That is the ultimate selfishness. But what’d expect from the religious. Which is basically organised selfishness
Otto – oh, yarp.
It’s not that uncommon in the USA, since people have access to firearms. The will to live is a powerful one, especially in people who’ve just unsuccessfully tried to die.
BiS – That is the ultimate selfishness. But what’d expect from the religious. Which is basically organised selfishness
That’s a new one to me, I think it’s a lot more selfish to check out early and leave grieving, broken people in your wake.
But I freely admit to being a servant of the Lord. Light my candles in a daze, why not?
I’ve put my name down in the lists, you see, BiS. I’m not a brave man, and don’t consider myself a good one, but I am for Good and against Evil. Can’t turn a blind eye. Won’t.
It seems to me that killing yourself or others is wrong.
The belief in a creator & your relation to it is basically selfishness. That’s all it is. I can accept religion as a first step in science. An attempt to the explain the existence of the world. But continuing beyond the point where it’s explained by self organisation -from diffuse hydrogen atoms, through stars, fusion products, planets & spontaneous generation of life through chemistry -what’s left is just selfishness. The belief it was done for your benefit. That you’re something special. Believe one thing. Only to yourself.
As for the slippery slope, we’re going to have to deal with it one day. Bevan’s theory that the NHS would self financing because a healthier society would be more productive turned out to be in serious error. Medical developments mean people live longer & therefore need more healthcare. Rinse & repeat. The end point of that one is an NHS with an attached economy. Except it isn’t an endpoint. Past it, healthcare consumes more than production & on you’re on your way back down to an eventual 35 year life expectancy as the whole mess collapses. How far are we off that now?
@John Galt – “Suicide is a very permanent solution to essentially temporary problems.”
All problems are temporary Your personal problems will have gone away in under a hundred years. Those of a nation might last a few hundred.
It is essential to take a realistic approach to euthanasia. You must accept that it will always happen. You mention the Liverpool pathway and bloke in spain mentions a specific personal case. The only choice we have is whether those who get euthanasia are those who wanted it or those who other people feel ought to want it. You exhibit this attitude yourself saying “Obviously there are circumstances where medically assisted death might be better than the alternatives “. But that attitude is wrong. There is one and only one valid reason for euthanasia and that is that the person themselves wants it. This is why disability campaigners are so worried about euthanasia – so few people are willing to accept that it must be voluntary.
@Esteban – refers to “people said if we did A it would lead all the way to Z, and it did, but now we’re OK with Z”
It’s worth noting that what this is really saying is that people indulged in baseless scaremongering and were proved wrong.