91Èȱ¬

Cool, my iPhone is finally allowing me to leave comments. So..... I wish I could be at this debate, it sounds like fun. But the fundamental question I fear may not be asked: who owns one's life? If it is their own, then it is theirs to end. And if the assistee's life is their own, then it is theirs to use in the assistance of another's legitimate exercising of their right. Debate proceeds from there.

That is good news; that it is finally making its case in Belfast....

~Dennis Junior~

William:

The case will be made by Dr Michael Irwin, who was on Sunday Sequence before the solstice, at a public meeting of the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland next Thursday 8th January at 8 pm in the Malone Lodge Hotel, Eglantine Avenue.

Dr Irwin was a medical director at the UN and is a former chairman of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, now Dignity in Dying.

Dr Irwin has accompanied three terminally-ill individuals from the UK to Switzerland and witnessed their dignified and peaceful deaths with the help of dedicated Dignitas staff.

I personally have three objections to Euthanasia. One is the standard religious. The second, which is more applicable to me were I to become terminally ill is the "Hamlet Argument"- i.e. What's after death? The third argument has nothing to do with religion. It's simple: What if I can get a cure?

<RICHPOST>Interesting timing... I just finished watching The Sea Inside, which is all about this topic. VERY thought-provoking film. <br><br> And, I agree that the question of who owns my life is central to this debate.<br><br><BR />-Steven<br><BR /><a href="https://www.AdvancedMeditation.com">Learn meditation</a> </RICHPOST>

<RICHPOST>Interesting timing... I just finished watching The Sea Inside, which is all about this topic. VERY thought-provoking film. <br><br> And, I agree that the question of who owns my life is central to this debate.<br><br><BR /><BR />-Steven<br><BR /><a href="https://www.AdvancedMeditation.com">Learn meditation</a> </RICHPOST>

What an interesting argument for euthanasia, one few people ever dared to make publicly in the past as far as I'm aware. Someone who is diagnosed with a condition characterized by among other things that they no longer have the capacity to make informed decisions regarding their own best interests by managing their own affairs being given the power to make the ultimate decision for themselves, the decision to live or die. And on what justification? Money. The financial burden their continued existance would put on taxpayers and the impact it would have on those being treated medically for different afflictions. What is a human life worth these days in the UK? How long before there is a bureaucracy setting standards for the cost of keeping someone alive based on their quality of life and their prospects of returning to what it considers to be "normal?" Why stop at giving people a choice? Socialist governments know what is best for everyone. From each according to his ability to each according to how much taxes they can afford to pay into the system. Why stop at medical conditions which burden society, why not just kill the indolent. Out of work, out of income, out of the right to life. Pay up or die.

Orvillethird-

Your three arguments really boil down to just one: the religious one. You believe euthanasia is wrong for religious reasons, essentially, not for any other reason. Whether you can get a cure or not will affect your decision, but it isn't an ethical argument.

John

Happy New Year

Your comments about who 'owns' one's life (as if I and my life were separate entities!) raises, for me, one of the reasons why I do not and cannot accept the morality of euthanasia. You see, I take the view, that "I am not my own..."; I'm sure you already know the context of these words.

That and Mary Warnock's views...


Brian

Who will be putting the case against, at your event, two days after Epiphany?


Marcus

A very valid point. One of the most disturbing aspects of William's report is the reference to Mary Warnock's suggestion that euthanasia should be an NHS care option. She, according to the 'Telegraph' article linked above is, "Britain's leading moral philosopher", and hopes that "people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves."

In fact everyone here should read the Telegraph article especially the Warnock quote, "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives..."

Is that a bridge too far for you Brian?

Ah the pleasures of capitalism. In the US, you are worth nothing dead. One last relatively small expense for anything from a cremation to a state funeral and you are worthless. But alive no matter what condition you are in, even as a vegetable, you consume. You consume medical care, food, and whatever else you want and need. This is what keeps our economy going. If for no other reason than this alone, you are infinitely more valuable alive than dead. Now there's one big difference between capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, your value is as a consumer. In socialism it's as a producer. When you no longer produce, you are worthless.

It's not just a burden on the taxpayer, but a burden on the family, *and* the burden on oneself. Nobody's crazy about it, but the fact is that we all die. Life is not an open-ended process. If the religious truly believe that their life is not their own, then why does it fall to the genius of medical science to keep us alive long after the malevolent sky pixie would have killed us all off? Terry Schiavo would have died long before, without the medical miracle of a per-endoscopic gastrostomy. Loads of people ekeing out their last minutes in intensive care units or high dependency units are only doing so because their hearts are being pumped full of dopamine. Their last minutes are only (partially) tolerable because of massive doses of diamorphine and diuretics.

So let's not kid ourselves that life belongs to some notional Great Whatever to give and take away. It's a defined process, with a beginning and an end. All the world's a stage, and as in any performance, we should be extended the courtesy of a dignified exit, stage left. [General alarum!]

[I'll be there, btw. Should be good]

Helio

Let's forget 'maleovlent sky pixies', partly because I can't be bothered dealing with trivial, one liner putdowns which you know resonate with notes deeper and more complex than your three word dismissal suggests, and partly because my response about owning life was related to John's comments, and let's deal with the issues raised by Mary Warnock.

You seem to find it possible to accommodate, if not thoroughly and roundly welcome, her veterinary approach to human life and medical care. So let's consider her comments again ask ask if you whole-heartedly agree with them. I'm taking these from the Telegraph article linked above.

'pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives"'
"dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services."
"If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service."
"you'd be licensing people to put others down."

Helio, do these particular sentiments accurately express your view?

The point here is that she is expressing an argument which, not only suggests that the law allow individuals to assist suicide, but that there are those who are a waste of space and that they ought to have more thought for others, and the taxer payer and, how do we put this, emm, die, and presumably wait for the fortnightly garbage collection. It's the contempt in her tone that really irritates me. Maybe you don't hear it.

Maybe you would also acknowledge that your comments in post 11 relating to "people ekeing out their last minutes in intensive care units or high dependency units are only doing so because their hearts are being pumped full of dopamine." is a different issue than either voluntary euthanasia or cashing in your chips cause you're a financial burden to some faceless bureaucracy. I'm not arguing here that we should unnecessarily prolong life, nor am I ignoring the fact that technology has raised moral issues people didn't have to face 50 years ago, but what I do object to is, one, an assimilation of the issues as if they were all the same, and two, an interfering old biddy telling people they have a duty to die cos they're wasting everybody's time and money. Cos Helio, what she's suggesting isn't a dignified end, it's cost saving exercise which might as well be handed over to the council refuse collection and waste disposal services.

I believe she used to be a headmistress; so, I'm thinking, what happened in her school if you failed your GCSE's, I mean that's a waste of tax payers money too. I take it too, BTW, that she isn't planning on joining a hospital visitation round anytime soon.

Hi Peter,
What do you propose you should do with the interfering old biddy then?
Put her down?!



Here - better hurry up - it starts in an hour!

I'm not even saying my views necessarily coincide with Baroness Warnock. I have my own views, as I am entitled to. I can defend myself.

One of the main fallacies - and it is a wicked and callous fallacy - trotted out is that by allowing voluntary euthanasia, we are "throwing people away", or "degrading life", "treating people like animals" or the like.

This is an unfair allegation. Perhaps you could address my point above. Life is a process with a beginning and an end. Everybody's life ends. It's a shame, but there it is. When my time comes, I would be quite happy for a medical team that I felt I could trust, to load me up with morphine and muscle relaxants, and send me off, preferably with those I love nearby.

You seem to be telling *me* that you value *my* life too much to let *me* do that. Well, I don't think you or your malevolent sky pixie (and let's face it, that's being generous to YHWH) really have any right to interfere in that process, or to haul my trusted medical team before the courts for carrying out my express wishes.

So let's just establish that ethical principle, and we can set up the guidelines about how best to ensure that the system operates successfully.

-H

"One of the main fallacies - and it is a wicked and callous fallacy - trotted out is that by allowing voluntary euthanasia, we are "throwing people away", or "degrading life", "treating people like animals" or the like."

The fact is that a legalisation of euthanasia makes those scenarios far more likely than they would otherwise be though.

Mary warnock's comments quoted by Peter are a case in point. The argument is not that everyone who supports euthanasia want to casually throw away life, or degrade life.

But if Euthanasia is allowed it becomes a realistic option, and those people who perhaps alreadydegraded the value of life now have a legal instrument with which to push forward the desired end of that view....e. that dementia patients stop wasting people's lives and just allow themselves to be put down. Legalised euthanasia will allow that to happen, and will also increase the types of human pressures that lead people to that view in the first place.

If an old lady has the slightest feeling that she is a burden to her family, even though she still values her lfe, will legalsed Euthanasia lessen or increase the presure on her?

I don't why why I've been giving "Euthanasia" the upper case, as if it's some kind of fudamental principle or something.
:)

Hi Helio

Happy New Year, should have said that first time, sorry.

Enjoy the debate too, unfortunately I can't make it, but I'll ask the sky pixie and see if it can fill me in with a mystical word or two about what went on. Alternatively you could fill me in later, I'm happy to take your word on it!

Of course you are entitled to your views, as is she, Voldemornock, or whatever her name is, I was just wondering if yours were the same as hers, and I suppose I'm still wondering to what degree yours are similar. I suspect though that you shrink back a little or a lot from the "wasting people's lives" approach of this leading philosophical thinker. What should we do with her? Personally I'd let her keep on with her driveling; anyway, me suggesting that we 'put her down' would sort of defeat my argument, don't you think?

You say that, "One of the main fallacies - and it is a wicked and callous fallacy - trotted out is that by allowing voluntary euthanasia, we are "throwing people away", or "degrading life", "treating people like animals" or the like.", well, I'm sorry, like, to do this, but, em, "throwing people away", was, eh, sorta like, em, her take on the subject. I got that from her use of the word 'waste'. Glad to see you think it's 'wicked and callous'.

"Life is a process with a beginning and an end." Yes. eh, yes again, not sure if I can offer another take on this view of life and... death.

And your point is?

I've already made a distinction between an unnecessary prolonging of life and people being a waste of space and I'm assuming you see this distinction. But the baroness isn't arguing against fruitless medical care and she's not even arguing for a right to die, she's arguing for a 'duty to die' and irrespective of all the other nuances of the debate and one's personal rights to die or not die, this is a change of direction in terms of policy and thinking - and it's a glaringly obvious one, which you don't appear to be arguing for.

By the way I'm not actually telling you anything about how you might die, I'm expressing a view about Warnock.

And as for YHWH, you're allowed to put the vowels in and say his name, he's not Voldemort!

Helio is right.

One of the problems with having a 'National Health Service' is that it makes issues which SHOULD be personal and individual into public and collective issues. Whether I smoke or do not, whether I wish to die or not: these are choices I should be free to make at the individual level, and part of my disdain for the NHS is built upon the fact that its forcing others to pay for my good health gives them a stake in whether or not to allow me those choices.

So this debate should properly take place without reference to public health systems, because they ARE private and individual affairs. And there isn't any doubt in my mind that Helio's approach, which is to say that the value somebody else places (or does not place) upon my life is irrelevant in a legal sense: I own my body and my life, and therefore I should be free to make decisions regarding it.

Bernard's point seems to be that, merely by legalizing euthanasia, we are encouraging the degradation of life in general. That's ridiculous, of course, but it's a point we should take seriously because it's an oft-used argument in many other issues: 'Marijuana isn't more harmful than alcohol, but by legalizing it we'd turn into a nation of potheads.' Or: 'Paying for sex is not immoral, but if we legalized prostitution it would turn women into sex objects.' Thankfully we have other nations to look to for validation of our belief that enacting laws allowing euthanasia or legal marijuana or prostitution do NOT have the scary-assed results people suggest. And the same is true of euthanasia, as countries with legal euthanasia have proven.

John,

"Helio is right."

About which bit, the 'die sucker, cos you cost too much', i.e. the Warnock argument, or 'he has a right to do what he wishes with his own life', which appears to be his argument, and yours?

I'm debating Warnock.

Peter-

The "cost too much" I addressed. Cost to others shouldn't factor as it does in the NHS.

Actually, chaps, you should have gone along to hear what Baroness Warnock had to say. She was excellent, and I thought she made a very cogent argument. I will say that I rather liked Idris Baker - he seems like a very nice chap, and I would be happy if he were my Palliative Care Consultant, should I be in the Departure Lounge. I didn't think he made any strong arguments against the principle, however.

However, I think that in the above discussion, the Baroness's views have been somewhat distorted. Firstly, she *was* arguing for voluntary euthanasia, and secondly she was recognising (correctly) that financial issues can be a rational part of the motivation some people may have to ending their lives, when they feel the time is right.

Tell you what, listen to SunSeq, and see what you think of the outcome. For a debate on this topic, taking place in a church in Northern Ireland, the vote was surprisingly close! A good night was had by all.

-H

"Bernard's point seems to be that, merely by legalizing euthanasia, we are encouraging the degradation of life in general"


No.

My point is not that the legalisation of euthanasia NECCESSARILY degrades life...In fact I made it clear that it does not neccessarily do so.

The point, however, is that there are people who wish to degrade life in general. There are those who feel that old people are a waste of space, that disabled people should never have been born, and that families should not be obliged to look after their relatives.

The existence of such people is not an EFFECT of legalising euthanasia...they already exist.

By legalising euthanasia, however, such people can be more forceful and active in promoting their aims, and will be enabled to bring all sorts of pressure to bear which they currently cannot do.

An old woman who feels that she is a burden on her family - is this feeling likely to be lessened or increased by the legalisation of euthanasia - the option that she could just be put down, thus ending that burden?

Isn't that likely to increase the pressure on her, and the sense of burden, which, after all, could be lifted if she would just let them put her down?

To take your marijuana example - I'm not suggesting that legalisation of marijuana will turn everyone into potheads.

But the child who's friends all smoke pot, and who doesn't himself want to, but feels some degree of peer pressure. Is legalisation more or less likely to lead to him going against his own better judgment? After all, if it's legal, it couldn't be all that bad, despite what his parents may say.

Legalisation of prostitution, which we've spoken about before.

A young woman finds herself in dire financial straits, with no home, or job. She is offered work in the sex industry, and doesn't want to take that work but feels she has no choice.

If prostitution were legalised, is she more or less likely to take a course of action that she doesn't really want to take? It's legal, after all, and she wouldn't have to fear prosecution, even though the thought of it sickens her.

The point is not that legalisation of euthanasia will suddenly turn us all into nihilistic sociopaths...the point is that the arguments of nihilistic sociopaths that humanity is useless, and any hindrance should be simply put down, will be legal and acceptable views, and will even be acceptable courses of action.

Bernard:

Just think: if we give women the right to vote and stand for Parliament, then we will be encouraging some strong-minded women to become MPs and take power away from men!

Just think: if we give all children the right to be educated, then we will be encouraging the hoi polloi to push their children forward and compete with richer kids for university places and professional jobs!

Your argument against voluntary euthanasia is just as fatuous.

Brian, don't be so ridiculously facile.

I think we could both agree that the degradation of human life is not an admirable end, and neither are pothead schoolchildren or financially pressured prostitutes.

Your arbitrary insertion of some admirable ends, as if somehow I'm arguing against those, is a fairly poor show, even by your standards.

Hurried reply was it?

I mean, honestly, read that back.

My argument is that legalisation of euthanasia is likely to have some undesired ends.

Your reply is that some other, completely unconnected and irrelevant course of action may have some desirable ends, therefore I must also be arguing against those????

Is that really your reply?

Really?

Bernard:

Oh, the insults fly again. Your responses are so predictable.

My point is that any right, including the right of women to vote or the rights of children or the right of an individual to choose when she/he should die, is always subject to slippery slope objections by people
who have a vested interest in opposing same.

It really is a smokescreen. The religious objection to euthanasia has ultimately nothing to do with rights at all (if it were, it would be supporting it) but everything to do with religious power over individuals.

Look, no church or religious organisation has any right to tell me that I cannot choose when I should die. In doing so, they religious are denying a fundamental right on the surrealistic basis that to grant the right is to risk losing it! Mad!

Brian wise up. I obviously wasn't insulting you, other than pointing out the facile nature of your argument. Surely we're allowed those insults.

"My point is that any right, including the right of women to vote or the rights of children or the right of an individual to choose when she/he should die, is always subject to slippery slope objections by people
who have a vested interest in opposing same"

First of all, the unthinking use of the word "right" is silly. There needs to be a discussion about what rights are first.

Secondly, my objection wasn't really about a slippery slope. i'm not suggesting that legalised euthanasia will turn us all into unfeeling bastards. I'm suggesting that there already are unfeeling bastards, and that the legalisation of euthanasia will allow them more scope to exert pressure.

If an old lady has two sons who are both bastards, is legalised euthanasia likely to enable them to exert more emotional pressure on that woman. When there is an option of legally "putting down" a paerson who is deemed a hindrance, won't some people feel more presurrised into making that decision.

you are not dealing with the argument in any genuine way, but have instead gone off on a rant about religious power.

I haven't even mentioned religion. i started on the basis that we may be able to agree that human life should not be cheapened...perhaps you don't agree with that.

I have made no arguments with even the slightest mention of religions, least of all religious authority. In what way do relgious institutions currently control the date of our deaths?

And then you make some silly point about vested interests...

Why on earth would i hafve a vested interest in controlling the date of people's deaths? What kind of vested interest is this. Do I stand to gain financially by arguing that people should not have the authority to "put down" others? Seriously like, what possible vested interest could I have, other than a general regard for the value of life. If that's a vested interest, then we might as well all go and top ourselves.

Helio:

Mary Warnock gives a reasoned argument in chapter 1 of her book An intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics

Of the slippery slope argument, she says: "It is not strictly a logical argument at all. There is no logicval connection between allowing a PVS patient to die and allowing the death of other patients who are afflicted in quite different ways. It is an argument about human nature: give them an inch, and they'll take an ell. It is, in this case, essentially a argument to be used by people who do not trust doctors or hospital ethics committees" (p37).

Peter, by the way, her approach is not 'veterinary', as you put it. She makes it clear that she thinks humans have moral priority over other animals and that talking about the rights of animals at all is inappropriate (p69).

Bernard:

Your argument has become even more fatuous. It amounts to saying:

Let's not give rights to women because there are some 'unfeeling bastard females' who will deny men their rights;

Let's not give rights to children because there are some 'unfeeling bastard children' who will abuse them;

Let's ban all weapons and all armies because there are some unfeeling bastards who wish use weapons to kill others.

Oh, what the heck, let's have not have any rights at all because they will all be abused and assumed 'unthinkingly' by 'unfeeling bastards' or unthinking Humanists.

It is really as silly as that.

Are you saying, Bernard, that I should not be permitted to decide when to end my own life because it is not my 'right' to do so? Answer this question, please.

BTW: I was talking about religious power in general, and not specifically referring to you. But if the cap fits...

Brian;

Nonsense. Your totally unrelated and unconnected examples have no relevance whatsoever.

"giving rights to women"....what kind of rights? the right to "put down" someone who becomes a hindrance?

Your silly talk of rights means that you can spuriously connect two entirely unconnected scenarios by arbitrarily naming them both "rights"

What has giving "rights" (in general, I suppose, if that means anything) got to do with giving "someone" the "right" to end someone else's life?

No one prevents you from ending your own life, Brian. Feel free.

What we're talking about is the legal ability of someone to end the life of another. I can forsee all kinds of situations in which "unfeeling bastards" could use this legal ability to exert all sorts of pressure.


i don't see how giving "rights" to women has any relevance whatsoever.

in what way does giving "rights" to children enable them to end the life of another?

Ridiculous argument Brian, and you know it.

"Are you saying, Bernard, that I should not be permitted to decide when to end my own life because it is not my 'right' to do so? Answer this question, please"

gladly. You are permitted to do so. Ain't nobody gonna stop you.

Now, were you an elderly dependent man and I your young carer, should i be permitted to harangue you about what a burden you are to society, while informing you that, of course, there is another option, you could submit to my putting you down, it would be best for us both.

Would that be a humane way to treat you Brian? Even if you still valued life?

Bernard-

Brian is right, you're making a not-so-effective slippery slope argument, not-so-effective because it fails to make the case you wish it to: that euthanasia should be banned. I THINK that's what you're saying; that euthanasia should be illegal because of your slippery slope argument. Am I wrong? Maybe you're just pointing out that there's a downside to legalizing anything, in which case I agree but find it irrelevant to the central discussion, 'Yes' or 'No'.

I haven't made a slippery slope argument. I'm not arguing that legalisation of euthanasia would gradually lead to everyone becoming more callous (I think it might well do so, but that is not an argument)

The argument I am making is that legalisation would allow unscrupulous individuals to exert a degree of pressure on vulnerable individuals which could end in those vulnerable people feeling pressurised into making a decision that they do not really wish to make.

There is no slippery slope - It's more an argument about opening floodgates.

There are people who do not value human life. that is fact. If there is a legal framework in which a person can legally decide that a life is not worth living, some pressure can be exerted to emotionally commit people to agreeing with that.

The example i keep making is that an old lady may well be a burden to her family, and her family may well wish that she was dead. If there is a LEGAL framework in which it can be LEGALLY decided that that person WOULD actually be better off dead, then that person may well feel an incrementally increased pressure to conform to that view.

It is not about a slippery slope, which begins with something seemingly innocent but may lead on to other undesirable things. It is an argument that a lwegal framework within which it can be decided that a person's life is not worth living will inevitably emotionally oppress those who personally feel that their life IS worth living, but who also feel that they are a burden to others.

A legal framework in which it can be decided that "yes, I am a burden to others, and would be better dead" will inevitably lead to people being emotionally pressurised into accepting that view.

This is the same argument as the legalisation of prostitution, so it's not really surprising that we're taking the same positions.

If we accept that some people may be emotionally or financially pressurised into doing something that they don't want to do (like killing themselves off, or selling their body), a legal framework in which they can legally do such a thing will not decrease that pressure, but will increase it.

Bernard,

I see your point. But it isn't really an argument against allowing people "the right to die", is it? It's an argument in favour of ensuring that, when euthanasia is legalized, the legal framework is constructed in such a way as to ensure that it's been the patient's decision, alone. Even if you were to argue that that could be fraught with difficulty, it still isn't an argument against euthanasia.

"ensuring that, when euthanasia is legalized, the legal framework is constructed in such a way as to ensure that it's been the patient's decision, alone. Even if you were to argue that that could be fraught with difficulty"

I think, when it comes down to it, my point precisely is that that is impossible to do.

Or not impossible, shall we say...inadequate.

That a person decides that their life is nothing but a burden, to what extent is that a purely personal feeling, and to what extent is it conditioned by emotional pressures and fear of neglect?

I would say it would, very often, be the latter, and that if there is a legal framework to justify precisely such a thing, it would be substantially more common.

Bernard,

You're projecting your own values onto everyone else, as though nobody could ever feel differently than you about whether their life is worth living or not. But it isn't your life, it's theirs. And to go back to the argument you're making, it falls into the category 'Dismissive of the concept of rights'. Earlier you told Brian that one needs a discussion about what rights are before we talk about them. But you haven't made an appeal to rights at all since. And until you do, I'm going to insist that you are ignoring my rights by saying that pragmatic concerns trump my being allowed to decide for myself whether to continue living (or whether to be allowed to help a friend or family member who wants to die). Your issue is one of practice, not of principle. And you may as well conclude that we shouldn't have a justice system at all because getting it right 100 percent of the time is impossible.

I haven't made an appeal to rights precisely because i think it's a muddy issue, and your appeal to "your rights" does nothing to clarify it. Nonsense on stilts.

I am not projecting my values onto anybody...I'm saying that a legal framework in which a life can be decreed wasteful allows THAT value to be projected with increased pressure onto the vulnerable. I.e. That vulnerable people may have the value that their life is wasteful exerted upon them with increased pressure if there is a legal framework for such a thing.

Bernard-

That's precisely where you've gone wrong. The system allowing the legal possibility of something does not project any value on doing that thing, whatsoever. Because fast food is legal to consume doesn't mean that the system (or 'government' or 'society') is projecting a high value upon eating a Big Mac a day. Because it is legal to commit adultery does not mean that the system is projecting any value (positive or negative) on it.

A rights-based system of government allows people to have their own values. That's the point. And that's why euthanasia is an individual, not a collective, decision. Legalizing it no more endorses it than legalizing the selling of shitty products on infomercials.

Couple of things by way of clarification.

Helio, I accept that the baroness is also arguing for voluntary euthanasia and that it might have helped if I had used the word 'only' in my statement "But the baroness isn't arguing against fruitless medical care and she's not (even) (only) arguing for a right to die". but I was deliberately emphasising the point that she was, most clearly, arguing for a 'duty to die'; this changes the debate and it is interesting that neither you nor Brian are attempting to defend this point of view. So while I realise that I might have been clearer, I was not setting out to distort the baroness's views.

Brian, regarding my use of the word veterinary. As I said to Helio earlier on the "throwing people away" point, it's simply a response Warnock's tone. It was she who introduced the phrase, "to put others down", one which is usually use in a veterinarian context, I merely continued the analogy. If therefore, as you cite, she "makes it clear that she thinks humans have moral priority over other animals and that talking about the rights of animals at all is inappropriate", then perhaps she should be more careful to choose descriptions appropriate to the end of one's life.


All I have done in my comments is quote Baroness W. and I have found that few, if any, are prepared to attempt to defend the 'duty to die' view, which, when you think about it, would be pretty difficult to do while also holding the view that each individual has a right to choose for themselves. In other words she has NO right to tell others that they have a duty to die, that they are wasting people's lives – their family's lives – and the resources of the National Health Service.

You cannot have it both ways. The view that an individual has a right to opt for assisted voluntary euthanasia while in NHS care and carried out by NHS employees also means that an individual has a right to opt for continued medical care, however fruitless it may appear and however much it cost.

Can we agree then, to kick into touch the, 'burden to the taxpayer', 'waste of resources', 'duty to die' argument as one as one which ought not to be countenanced in the debate about assisted suicide?

Peter asks:

"Can we agree then, to kick into touch the, 'burden to the taxpayer', 'waste of resources', 'duty to die' argument as one as one which ought not to be countenanced in the debate about assisted suicide?"

Yes. It should be irrelevant to the central debate.

No - not all agreed I'm afraid.

Suicide refers to a person voluntarily ending their own life. A rational person thinking about that course of action might quite legitimately consider the impact of a prolonged period of incapacity both on the financial and emotional welfare of their own family and on the allocation of the scare resource of NHS funding.

A moral person with no intrinsic objection to suicide should consider in certain circumstances, I would argue, whether or not they might have a duty to die. The question is not whether they want to die, it is whether they should die. I can certainly envisage circumstances where conscientious reflection might well lead an individual to the conclusion that an early death was the morally optimal outcome.


Such a decision should be wholly internal and personal and, where no third party is involved, it is easy to keep it so.

The matter becomes clouded when others get involved. This is why I strenuously oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide. As soon there is outside influence the purity of motive is easily diluted or obscured and there is the real danger of fracturing at a very deep level the most important bonds of trust we enjoy.

There is a sense in which this then ceases to be an argument about suicide: the word for pressurising or influencing the vulnerable toward self-destruction is murder.

A decision to end one's own life made under even the slightest duress (whether by relatives, 'friends', or the state) is not suicide, it is not assisted suicide, it is murder.

Bernard:

You really are dancing on the head of a Jesuitical pin.
Your contorted argument seems to depend on the existence of 'evil' or unscrupulous individuals out there whom you think we should let determine the extent of our rights and freedoms. It's a bit like those governments in the USA and the UK which have diminished our freedom for the sake of our freedom.

I personally am prepared to take the risk that legalising voluntary euthanasia will lead to some 'bastard' persuading me that I should opt to die (he might be right, I hear you say - facetiously).

You know that you haven't answered my question. You know I wasn't referring to suicide but assisted suicide. Should I have the right to request help with my death or not? Where is your answer? Echo answers Ìý– where?

Let me say that such theoretical and obscurantist discussions of the sanctity of life seem somewhat bizarre when children are being massacred in Gaza as I type this. They will never have a choice when to die.

Peter:

Your censoriousness is unnecessary. You are reading too much into a perceived 'tone'. I suggest you read Warnock's book rather than rely on Daily Torygraph reports. Newspapers, as I am sure you are aware, are notorious for distorting views with which they don't have sympathy.

Portwyne, hi, happy new year.

I'm not so sure you disagree with me; indeed you appear to have made an even stronger case than I.

I was linking, directly, the call by Baroness Warnock that "dementia sufferers should consider ending their lives through euthanasia because of the strain they put on their families and public services", calling it a 'duty', to the argument that it is the right of the individual alone to make such decisions. In calling for such she moves beyond asking for legal recognition of the right of a person to decide, into the realms of what you describe as a 'wholly internal' process. It is this which is my point. The Baroness in doing so is implying that this decision is not something purely internal and personal but something which everyone is, morally, bound to consider. This, in my view, is 'outside interference', it is 'pressuring and influencing the vulnerable' and, as I have said, it is a view which changes the debate.

That you have chosen to describe this set of circumstances as 'murder' is to invoke a much stronger concept than the one I did.

Brian

I neither take the Telegraph, nor buy it, I merely clicked a link provided by William. But what are you suggesting, that the Daily Telegraph has mis-quoted the baroness? I wasn't quoting the Telegraph I was quoting the Telegraph quoting the baroness. "I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."

Nice side-step though; I explained my use of a word and then you called it censorious. So, do you share her view that people have a 'duty' to consider death or not? Do to accept the distinction between the right of the individual alone to choose and the call by Warnock to impose a sense of duty, or not? Do you accept that provision of one right, based on the right to choose (which you champion), that of voluntary euthanasia on the NHS, requires the right to choose continued treatment no matter what the cost?

Forget about God, forget about the Tories and forget about the Telegraph and tell us what exactly your position is here?

Has the baroness gone too far or not?

Peter:

Mary Warnock was expressing an opinion. We cannot 'impose' a moral duty. We can only make suggestions. She was arguing that dementia sufferers, if they can, should consider others and not just themselves. I agree with her. Some of them might concur as well. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with realising that you might be a burden on others?

My mother had dementia, as did her aunt before her. While visiting her aunt in a care home, she kept saying that if she ended up like her, she hoped that, rather be a pain and a burden to everyone, we would end it for her.

Actually, she had dementia for 6 years and ended up close to being a vegetable. Then she took pneumonia and fought it, coughing and choking for two months (she had a strong heart). Finally, she was, with our consent, 'put on a dying pathway' by the consultant in the hospital. In other words, fluids were withdrawn and morphine administered so that she would die 'peacefully' rather than choke to death.

In the last 2 years she had no quality of life whatsoever and might as well have been dead. I think our consent is what she would have wished. In fact, she would have scolded me for being too slow to act!

I think everyone should think about themselves and the family and friends they have around them. 'Public' doesn't come into it, and asking someone to assist you in a suicide is your and their innate right.

One other reason why I would not commit suicide. I may still hacve something good to do for someone else. My life may be my own, but that doesn't mean I can't give a bit of it for someone else.

And, MAII, private companies like HMO's could conceivably request euthanasia (or simply not pay for life support) to cut costs.

In addition, hospitals could conceivably deny life-saving care to save resources. (While this may be expected in triage situations like mass disasters, I'm sure some cold-hearted hospitals could try that in normal situations.)

Brian

I have no wish to argue against a 'dying pathway', that is sometimes the wise decision to make. And, without entering into details, I can think of similar personal family circumstances. (Sometimes technology can create as many problems as it solves.)

Your remarks however read much more benignly than Baroness Warnock’s. Requesting that one die peacefully, is different to, it's much different in fact, to proposing that one has a 'duty' to die, and I am heartened to note that you regard this as something which cannot be imposed. I think too though, that we ought to be tread with extreme caution in pursuing a debate which uses words like duty and waste because these are precisely the kinds of words which can diminish a person's value. Particularly if they are vulnerable, and the words were to be malevolently used. (Which I think is Bernard’s main point)