# Assisted Dying



## SaintHacker (Oct 22, 2021)

Just watched an interesting interview on BBC news about the bill thats due to be read, with the Archbishop of Canterbury trying, and failing miserably, to put forward reasons why assisted dying shouldn't be allowed.
In my opinion if someone is agreed to be sound of mind by medical professionals there is no good reason to make them, and there loved ones, suffer for one minute more than they feel they should.


----------



## BiMGuy (Oct 22, 2021)

SaintHacker said:



			Just watched an interesting interview on BBC news about the bill thats due to be read, with the Archbishop of Canterbury trying, and failing miserably, to put forward reasons why assisted dying shouldn't be allowed.
In my opinion if someone is agreed to be sound of mind by medical professionals there is no good reason to make them, and there loved ones, suffer for one minute more than they feel they should.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Edited to add. This is already done to some degree with the use of morphine drivers at the very end of end of life care.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 22, 2021)

My sister is very religious, same group as the archbishop, and I've had the same discussion/argument with her. I agree with you, prolonging the life of people in constant pain is cruel. 

Is the bill backed by the government or is it a private members bill?


----------



## AliMc (Oct 22, 2021)

My wife and her sister are both hospital Pharmacists and stauch catholics, both will have to consider giving up their jobs if this is brought in, it's not just one pill that will be prescribed here but can be a whole cocktail of different drugs depending on the individuals circumstances, they will have real issues with this given their faith


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

AliMc said:



			My wife and her sister are both hospital Pharmacists and stauch catholics, both will have to consider giving up their jobs if this is brought in, it's not just one pill that will be prescribed here but can be a whole cocktail of different drugs depending on the individuals circumstances, they will have real issues with this given their faith
		
Click to expand...

Genuinely, why?
Do they question or know the motives of the Drs who make the prescriptions?
Surely they don't know nor enquire as to the circumstances of the person being prescribed , or why exactly the drugs are prescribed.?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 22, 2021)

Should have been allowed a long time ago 

If someone is suffering in the last days/weeks of an illness that there is no end and they are off sound mind or have signed a document when off sound mind then they should be allowed to end their own suffering


----------



## Neilds (Oct 22, 2021)

I have always thought it strange that the best thing to do to a sick animal wa to "put it out of it's misery, it's the kindest thing to do" but this is totally opposite for humans.  Tricky situation though.


----------



## Wilson (Oct 22, 2021)

Neilds said:



			I have always thought it strange that the best thing to do to a sick animal wa to "put it out of it's misery, it's the kindest thing to do" but this is totally opposite for humans.  Tricky situation though.
		
Click to expand...

I watched my Father's body give up on him, and he had the same view, and used to say if he was a dog he would have been put out of his misery long before.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Should have been allowed a long time ago 

If someone is suffering in the last days/weeks of an illness that there is no end and they are off sound mind or have signed a document when off sound mind then they should be allowed to end their own suffering
		
Click to expand...

Yes. Now, with technologies like video etc, they can ensure that the wishes of the patient are clear and genuine.
Nobody is advocating the patient alone in a room with relatives badgering  "sign here, sign here, now" scenarios.
Witnessed videos, corroborated by a Dr verifying inevitable death can be written into the Act to eliminate fear of abuse of the compassionate action.

I do sometimes wonder just how much compassion some people have.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2021)

Wilson said:



			I watched my Father's body give up on him, and he had the same view, and used to say if he was a dog he would have been put out of his misery long before.
		
Click to expand...

My dad asked me to help do this.
It hurt having to say no ,as I could end up in jail.
For the point on pharmacy workers just abstain and have a dedicated body to set these prescriptions it’s not that difficult.
I can see the merits.
But there are far to many horrible people who just want to inherit their Money.
So the rules need to be very stringent.
But I do think you should have control over your own destiny.


----------



## AliMc (Oct 22, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Genuinely, why?
Do they question or know the motives of the Drs who make the prescriptions?
Surely they don't know nor enquire as to the circumstances of the person being prescribed , or why exactly the drugs are prescribed.?
		
Click to expand...

I really can't say why their Catholic faith leads them to have this stance, I'm not religious in any way so can't comment, but to answer your questions of course they know and question the motives and circumstances of the Dr's prescriptions, that's their job, they do ward rounds and check patients medical records, prescriptions have to be checked against the patients cardex's before they are issued, i read somewhere recently in a recent small local review of Dr issued prescriptions 70% + were found to be incorrect and about 40% were completed illegally, my wife comes home exasperated virtually every day with stories relating to the state of the prescriptions they have to deal with


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2021)

AliMc said:



			I really can't say why their Catholic faith leads them to have this stance, I'm not religious in any way so can't comment, but to answer your questions of course they know and question the motives and circumstances of the Dr's prescriptions, that's their job, they do ward rounds and check patients medical records, prescriptions have to be checked against the patients cardex's before they are issued, i read somewhere recently in a recent small local review of Dr issued prescriptions 70% + were found to be incorrect and about 40% were completed illegally, my wife comes home exasperated virtually every day with stories relating to the state of the prescriptions they have to deal with
		
Click to expand...

My son is a pharmacist and think this would not be a problem.
These prescriptions would be scrutinised to the last degree and there must be pharmacists who have totally the opposite view to the ones you know.
It’s a tough debate ,but it needs to be sorted one way or another.
I do agree the poor state of prescriptions though as my lad tells me he is constantly following up on them as the doctors handwriting is so bad.
It’s going to be a problem for some medical professionals but maybe we need our own Dignitas staffed by people who see this as help not a religious or ethical thing.
Time will tell.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

AliMc said:



			I really can't say why their Catholic faith leads them to have this stance, I'm not religious in any way so can't comment, but to answer your questions of course they know and question the motives and circumstances of the Dr's prescriptions, that's their job, they do ward rounds and check patients medical records, prescriptions have to be checked against the patients cardex's before they are issued, i read somewhere recently in a recent small local review of Dr issued prescriptions 70% + were found to be incorrect and about 40% were completed illegally, my wife comes home exasperated virtually every day with stories relating to the state of the prescriptions they have to deal with
		
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't mean why their catholic faith😀 . I meant why they would be concerned re the motives of the Dr prescribing.
I misunderstood their role, my ignorance. I thought that the hospital pharmacist was the person who stood in their "chemists shop" within the hospital and from there they issued prescriptions sent to them by various hospital Drs. Not unlike the high street pharmacy.
Didn't realise they did ward rounds etc.


----------



## AliMc (Oct 22, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Ah, I didn't mean why their catholic faith😀 . I meant why they would be concerned re the motives of the Dr prescribing.
I misunderstood their role, my ignorance. I thought that the hospital pharmacist was the person who stood in their "chemists shop" within the hospital and from there they issued prescriptions sent to them by various hospital Drs. Not unlike the high street pharmacy.
Didn't realise they did ward rounds etc.
		
Click to expand...

No worries mate !


----------



## Scoobiesnax (Oct 22, 2021)

Looking at the Catholic Faith, although previous posters have said they aren't questioning it - I would suggest assisting dying is seen as suicide; therefore anyone helping in this act is helping the person commit suicide.  Within Catholicism suicide is a grave sin, seen as an attack on God creations and his divine right to oversee life & death.

Personally I think assisting dying is the right thing to do if some poor bugger is in a situation whereby they are not able to live a quality of life they were accustomed too - hope I never have to be in that situation personally.


----------



## IanM (Oct 22, 2021)

Generally in favour. Lost my mum in June, and if it was up to her she'd have asked "to go" 12 months earlier.  

Theory is fine, sorting out the practicalities is more problematic.


----------



## SaintHacker (Oct 22, 2021)

I thin anyone questioning this needs to see the interview this morning. It was a man whose wife was terminally ill, suffering badly, who wanted and decided to end her own life. She ended up taking a cocktail of drugs of her own making, which, instead of giveing her the peaceful passing that she wanted, had the drugs been prescribed by a doctor, she suffered in his words 'a slow tortuous death'. The poor man was heartbroken by it understandably so. His direct question to the archbishop was 'who are you to say my wife cannot choose to pass away peacefully and end her suffering at a time and place of her choosing?'. The guy could not give him a straight answer.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 22, 2021)

For me on a personal level I am totally in favour.

Having watched what my wife went through in the last years of her life that would never be for me but I also know that assisted dying would never been what she wanted.

Sound mind is an all important factor but there should be a thorough check to ascertain whether or not the person is coming under pressure from others to do it.


----------



## IanM (Oct 22, 2021)

I get the religious stuff about all powerful god, life and death etc, although the dear  old ArchBish uses "God gave us free will" as a reason for stuff when it suits him!


----------



## stefanovic (Oct 22, 2021)

I never lose sight of the fact that 'Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. (Thomas Hobbes).

The reasons for this were not scientifically explained until Darwin, and later elaborated on by Richard Dawkins, George Price and others.
Whichever way you look at it we all came out of the darkness and one day we all go back into it.

What came before us we are completely ignorant and what comes after us we are also ignorant.
For a few decades, if we are lucky, the spotlight falls on us, our generation, and that should be reward enough.
Like a sparrow flying through an open door when a storm rages outside and for a brief period it is protected from the worst of the weather before flying out again. (Venerable Bede).

I think we should be able to make our own choice one day, and be assured that life will still go on without us


----------



## RichA (Oct 22, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			For me on a personal level I am totally in favour.

Having watched what my wife went through in the last years of her life that would never be for me but I also know that assisted dying would never been what she wanted.

Sound mind is an all important factor but there should be a thorough check to ascertain whether or not the person is coming under pressure from others to do it.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Also a factor is the perception of the individual in question. Even if the relatives aren't applying pressure, the individual might make an irreversible decision based on guilt and a desire to be selfless.
Fortunately, my Dad is remarkably fit and healthy, physically and mentally, for an 89 year old. No amount of reassurance can convince him that he isn't a burden on his children, though. That's my only worry with the issue.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

RichA said:



			Totally agree. Also a factor is the perception of the individual in question. Even if the relatives aren't applying pressure, the individual might make an irreversible decision based on guilt and a desire to be selfless.
Fortunately, my Dad is remarkably fit and healthy, physically and mentally, for an 89 year old. No amount of reassurance can convince him that he isn't a burden on his children, though. That's my only worry with the issue.
		
Click to expand...

I take your point. But the goalposts have moved a bit😀
We are talking about people who are terminally ill, verified by Drs, who are in pain or very badly situated, who then make their wishes known in indisputable and proper circumstances.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2021)

Very dificult subject, I had one friend who chose to go to Switzerland through Dignitas, he was only in his early 50’s but had suffered since his early 40’s with a degenaritive disease.

How he passed only came to light afterwards as only his wife, 2 Children and 1 family friend was involved, due to the fact they’d of been prevented from leaving the Country had the authorities found out.

I believe we should have the choice in the right circumstances, but the right of those opposed need to be protected as well.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 22, 2021)

A very good friend of mine died a couple of years ago from Motor Neurone Disease, without doubt one of the cruelest illnesses there is. He had looked at Dignitas in Switzerland and was happy to go down that route, and was told he could but only if he was able to travel under his own steam and remained capable of administering the drugs himself, that being the deal. His partner refused to travel with him, so he didn’t, in the end, go. Fortunately for him, he died peacefully at home in his sleep.

I remain staggered, in this day and age, that someone of sound mind and who is able to self administer the drugs cannot do so in dignity, and in surroundings where they are cared for at the end. It is utterly wrong that this decision should be one where politicians have the ultimate say, and are swayed in their decision by religious leaders. Plain wrong.


----------



## Rooter (Oct 22, 2021)

I have to go to the hospital every 8 weeks for an infusion of biological medicine. A chap I see every 8 weeks there goes every 2 weeks, he is a donor-recipient, it's not going well, he is on his 2nd or third attempt. Today he said while we were waiting to go in along the lines of 'i wish they would just give up trying with me now, I am not living any form of life, I sleep a maximum of 2 hours a night and am in constant pain, I just want it all to end' The guy I thought was in his mid to late seventies.. Told me today he is 59. 

I am very much a if in sound mind to make that decision, then you should be allowed the dignity of ending your own life.


----------



## Captainron (Oct 22, 2021)

I also saw that this moring and I was very unimpressed by the Archbishops responses and his demeanour.  

Stopping the bill makes no sense to me as the sign off for an actual assisted death is robust.


----------



## DRW (Oct 22, 2021)

After seeing what Dad went though, it only confirmed my thoughts on assisted dying. It should be legal.

Assuming someone is willing to help me, then there would be many situations I can think of, I would like that option.

Hopefully I will die of a quick painless death.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 22, 2021)

From a different perspective - though not a view on Yes/No on the debate.

My cousin, 60 next month, is in palliative care due to multiple cancers and nearing the end.  She is now always living with severe pain, sometimes very severe.  Most of the time she is perfectly lucid, though movement can be very painful, but sometimes the pain relief drugs are required to be so strong that they numb both the pain and her lucidity.  She has been subject to multiple interventions as the cancers have spread, and at any point she could have said No More.  But she hasn’t.

She has a very strong faith and she uses that faith to cope.  Why does she continue?  Maybe she wants to get to her 60th next month to celebrate with her twin, her younger brother, my aunt, and their wider family and community.  But I think it is much more than that.  I think she is doing it for _others_…so that in _their_ times of pain and difficulty, such as we all have, they can take strength from my cousins fortitude and example, strength to look deep inside themselves and find that same fortitude and strength to keep going and keep positive through their difficult period - as my dear cousin has been doing for nearly 3years and as as she continues to do today, and she will do until the end.

In her final days I am as certain as I can be that, whatever pain or loss of consciousness she is subject to, she would not want her final moments to be hastened by intervention, and that might be very difficult for those who love and are close to her - and of those there are very many.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 22, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			From a different perspective - though not a view on Yes/No on the debate.

My cousin, 60 next month, is in palliative care due to multiple cancers and nearing the end.  She is now always living with severe pain, sometimes very severe.  Most of the time she is perfectly lucid, though movement can be very painful, but sometimes the pain relief drugs are required to be so strong that they numb both the pain and her lucidity.  She has been subject to multiple interventions as the cancers have spread, and at any point she could have said No More.  But she hasn’t.

She has a very strong faith and she uses that faith to cope.  Why does she continue?  Maybe she wants to get to her 60th next month to celebrate with her twin, her younger brother, my aunt, and their wider family and community.  But I think it is much more than that.  I think she is doing it for _others_…so that in _their_ times of pain and difficulty, such as we all have, they can take strength from my cousins fortitude and example, strength to look deep inside themselves and find that same fortitude and strength to keep going and keep positive through their difficult period - as my dear cousin has been doing for nearly 3years and as as she continues to do today, and she will do until the end.

In her final days I am as certain as I can be that, whatever pain or loss of consciousness she is subject to, she would not want her final moments to be hastened by intervention, and that might be very difficult for those who love and are close to her - and of those there are very many.
		
Click to expand...

And that is absolutely her choice, which she has every right to exercise. For me, this is all about choice, and those who choose to end their lives should be allowed to do so without it feeling somehow dirty and opposed by those who have zero knowledge of their wishes or circumstances.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Oct 22, 2021)

It should be a choice, it shouldn’t be a taboo subject, shouldn’t be frowned upon or looked at as if you need help or a cowardly way out. 

Absolutely should be allowed for who are in pain and certainly allowed for those who see the world differently and just feel “life” isn’t for them.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

Billysboots said:



			A very good friend of mine died a couple of years ago from Motor Neurone Disease, without doubt one of the cruelest illnesses there is. He had looked at Dignitas in Switzerland and was happy to go down that route, and was told he could but only if he was able to travel under his own steam and remained capable of administering the drugs himself, that being the deal. His partner refused to travel with him, so he didn’t, in the end, go. Fortunately for him, he died peacefully at home in his sleep.

I remain staggered, in this day and age, that someone of sound mind and who is able to self administer the drugs cannot do so in dignity, and in surroundings where they are cared for at the end. It is utterly wrong that this decision should be one where politicians have the ultimate say, and are swayed in their decision by religious leaders. Plain wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Well said, indeed.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 22, 2021)

There are states worth than death, severe pain, some neurodegenerative diseases. I hope that if I ever reach that state, someone does me the mercy of ending it for me. Medicine and caring are as much about quality of life as length of life, and some treatment extends and prolongs death rather than life. The reality is that despite improvements in palliative care, there are some situations where genuine comfort and relief cannot be provided. 

Assisted dying is a difficult area, and is an unwelcome choice between bad outcomes to find the least worst. Washing your hands of it and claiming ethical objections doesn't help the patient involved much, can be a bit of a cop-out. 

Like abortion, it should be a matter of conscience, but also like abortion, people should apply their personal religious beliefs to their own choices and not those of others. 

In Ireland, death is not seen in quite the same way as England. Obviously it is often a sad time, but sometimes it is a relief to the patients and their family and is welcomed even if not assisted.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 22, 2021)

I’m definitely in favour of this with proper conditions and monitoring.

It’s not about shortening life, it’s about shortening the process of death.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 22, 2021)

‘


Billysboots said:



			And that is absolutely her choice, which she has every right to exercise. For me, this is all about choice, and those who choose to end their lives should be allowed to do so without it feeling somehow dirty and opposed by those who have zero knowledge of their wishes or circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

And then so it should remain the choice of the individual, but not of others.  

My cousin could have chosen to not continue with interventions over a year ago at a point when things were very painful and very dark - and if she had not been able to make a decision at that point but others had…but she chose to continue and the interventions since received have given her many valuable months with us that were not expected and that have enriched her life as it closes and that of all around her as we support her.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 22, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			‘

And then so it should remain the choice of the individual, but not of others. 

My cousin could have chosen to not continue with interventions over a year ago at a point when things were very painful and very dark - and if she had not been able to make a decision at that point but others had…but she chose to continue and the interventions since received have given her many valuable months with us that were not expected and that have enriched her life as it closes and that of all around her as we support her.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 22, 2021)

Who does the assisting though, it can't be right for a clinician to end another life. Some may be able to take a lethal drink or press a button but some won't.   Even if it's a form of lethal injection someone has to make the preparations.

The DNR instruction is more acceptable to me even if it doesn't address those with long term pain and suffering.  I'm not suggesting the concept of someone wishing to end their life prematurely is wrong but there are some complications in my mind as to how it can be used.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 22, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I’m definitely in favour of this with proper conditions and monitoring.

*It’s not about shortening life, it’s about shortening the process of death.*

Click to expand...



It was said this morning,” it’s not about prolonging life, but not prolonging death”. The same thing but different Words.
The end product is the same, so why prolong. Listening to the archbishop this morning, he embarrassed himself and if he as a spokesperson is the strongest argument for not assisting with death. Then he should stick to religion and religion only.
Missis T saw the assisted death story this morning and as a nurse she said that people who vote on this need to spend a day with people who are prolonging death and there families.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 22, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			It was said this morning,” it’s not about prolonging life, but not prolonging death”. The same thing but different Words.
The end product is the same, so why prolong. Listening to the archbishop this morning, he embarrassed himself and if he as a spokesperson is the strongest argument for not assisting with death. Then he should stick to religion and religion only.
Missis T saw the assisted death story this morning and as a nurse she said that people who vote on this need to spend a day with people who are prolonging death and there families.
		
Click to expand...

He would consider his religion to be all about life and death.  People may not agree with his view but I can understand why he wants to express it.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 22, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			He would consider his religion to be all about life and death.  People may not agree with his view but I can understand why he wants to express it.
		
Click to expand...

I totally get that, but he knew what the topic of conversation was the day before he was interviewed. Am positive there is another side not assisting with death. But his responses were very poor.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 22, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Who does the assisting though, it can't be right for a clinician to end another life. Some may be able to take a lethal drink or press a button but some won't.   Even if it's a form of lethal injection someone has to make the preparations.

The DNR instruction is more acceptable to me even if it doesn't address those with long term pain and suffering.  I'm not suggesting the concept of someone wishing to end their life prematurely is wrong but there are some complications in my mind as to how it can be used.
		
Click to expand...

If it was anything like Dignitas the patient has to be able to administer the drugs to themselves.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 22, 2021)

Billysboots said:



			If it was anything like Dignitas the patient has to be able to administer the drugs to themselves.
		
Click to expand...

So what happens if they're not physically able?


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 22, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			So what happens if they're not physically able?
		
Click to expand...

There are options to press buttons and I understand, in extreme cases, there is some suggestion that eye movement can be used.

Bottom line, it’s assisted suicide. So if the patient can’t administer it can’t happen.


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 22, 2021)

I'm convinced there's already an assisted  dying policy in place.
I've watched 4 family members slip away peacefully in hospitals over the years, all were in an induced comas.
If anything happened to me,  I wouldnt want  resussitated .


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 22, 2021)

williamalex1 said:



			I'm convinced there's already an assisted  dying policy in place.
I've watched 4 family members slip away peacefully in hospitals over the years, all were in an induced comas.
If anything happened to me,  I wouldnt want  resussitated .
		
Click to expand...

That (dying inevitably, but 'peacefully') is not what I'd consider 'assisted dying'. To there's a difference between making the transition as peaceful as possible and 'hurrying' the transition.


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 22, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			That (dying inevitably, but 'peacefully') is not what I'd consider 'assisted dying'. To there's a difference between making the transition as peaceful as possible and 'hurrying' the transition.
		
Click to expand...

I said I was convinced.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 22, 2021)

I remain not having a settled opinion on this.

If I reflect on my mother’s final 15months, 4 months in when she was still pretty much fully aware of her situation, in her deep despair she might well have said Yes if the option was offered, and may have asked us to consent if she couldn’t. That she then had a further 6 months of reasonable but ever decreasing awareness, during which time she seemed to reach a form of acceptance and we with her wider family and friends had some nice and moving times together…it is possible that none of that would have happened.

And in her final months I was able to do for my mum just what my dad would have wished of their eldest son…I cared and loved her every day that I could - how much of that time she was aware of me I do not know, but I do know that very often when I visited in the later months, and when we looked through old family photos, her eyes would show a little bit of sparkle and a smile would break across her face.  That she may well no longer have appreciated and understood quite what was happening to her, or indeed did not quite know who I was and who was in the photos, but I did not see the despair of the earlier months…and she left us peacefully.

And so on my limited personal experience as well as some wider concerns around a door such as this when opened slightly will only through time get opened wider - my instinct is No to what is proposed, but as I say, I do not have a settled view.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 22, 2021)

Foxholer said:



			That (dying inevitably, but 'peacefully') is not what I'd consider 'assisted dying'. To there's a difference between making the transition as peaceful as possible and 'hurrying' the transition.
		
Click to expand...

When my mum had a massive stroke a couple of years ago, it became clear very quickly that there was nothing that could be done and that she would pass away in the next couple of days.

What I was not prepared for was the withdrawal of all water and food resulting in Mum dying 3 days later from organ failure bought on by dehydration.

I was with her when she passed, she was sedated and had no idea what was happening.  But for me it was a traumatic experience, call me selfish, but in my opinion it would have been better for everyone, when it was clear that there was no hope, if she had been given an injection and allowed to slip away. 

Society would have given a pet dog a quick humane end, but not humans


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			‘

And then so it should remain the choice of the individual, but not of others.  

My cousin could have chosen to not continue with interventions over a year ago at a point when things were very painful and very dark - and if she had not been able to make a decision at that point but others had…but she chose to continue and the interventions since received have given her many valuable months with us that were not expected and that have enriched her life as it closes and that of all around her as we support her.
		
Click to expand...

Agree absolutely, H, but you offer your view as if the goalposts have been moved.
They are where they've always been. It is not "the choice of others"
No one has suggested it is. It is someone of sound mind , with safeguards to ensure the decision is genuine, and who is verified as terminally ill, being allowed to ask for medical assistance to die a peaceful painfree death.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Why , oh, why is there an objection to that.?

Why then, does the old chestnut of a scenario -where a relative rocks up to a Dr with a piece of paper saying," Here, my mother/father/whoever has signed this-take my word for it, and do the honours , will you?"  keep being put forward as a counter argument against assisted dying?

Nobody is advocating anything remotely like that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 22, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Agree absolutely, H, but you offer your view as if the goalposts have been moved.
They are where they've always been. It is not "the choice of others"
No one has suggested it is. It is someone of sound mind , with safeguards to ensure the decision is genuine, and who is verified as terminally ill, being allowed to ask for medical assistance to die a peaceful painfree death.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Why , oh, why is there an objection to that.?

Why then, does the old chestnut of a scenario -where a relative rocks up to a Dr with a piece of paper saying," Here, my mother/father/whoever has signed this-take my word for it, and do the honours , will you?"  keep being put forward as a counter argument against assisted dying?

Nobody is advocating anything remotely like that.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, and why my view is not settled.  I have not heard what the Archbishop of C has said on the matter, however I suspect my thinking might not be that far from his as I find my views generally align pretty well with his.  I shall go have a listen.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 22, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed, and why my view is not settled.
		
Click to expand...

I don't get that. If "indeed" means you agree with what I've written, what's there to be unsettled about?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 22, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I don't get that. If "indeed" means you agree with what I've written, what's there to be unsettled about?
		
Click to expand...

‘Indeed‘ as in I understand the logic of that point of view but I am not (yet) convinced that my instinct is wrong.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2021)

I went to see a PP wife in hospital. She had a stroke, it was a big one. She was in a coma for 6 months and passed away peacefully without ever waking again and saying goodbye. My PP was grieving for 6 months. He was suffering more than her. The problem with strokes is they are all so different. Andrew Marr is back on telly hounding politicians with an excellent state of recovery. Other stroke victims are the wrong side of the pearly gates. There in lies the problem and solution of this particular stroke scenario. It is not one shoe fits all.
 Hospitals, Drs, consultants, surgeons etc already make decisions as to whether a patient could or should die. Some Patients in hospitals today already have DNR ( Do not resuscitate) or the equivalent at the side of there records. Why? Because if they were to “ recover” they would have no quality of life. The end result is the same. For me it is the same with assisted dying. Why are we prolonging suffering, and I do not just mean the individual involved but family as well.

Oh ah, nice to have a discussion without falling out 👍


----------



## Don Barzini (Oct 23, 2021)

SaintHacker said:



			The poor man was heartbroken by it understandably so. His direct question to the archbishop was 'who are you to say my wife cannot choose to pass away peacefully and end her suffering at a time and place of her choosing?'. The guy could not give him a straight answer.
		
Click to expand...

Puts me in mind of a meme I saw Ricky Gervais share on Facebook. It went something along the lines of:

Your religion says you can’t do something - OK

Your religion says I can’t do something - Sod you


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2021)

Don Barzini said:



			Puts me in mind of a meme I saw Ricky Gervais share on Facebook. It went something along the lines of:

Your religion says you can’t do something - OK

Your religion says I can’t do something - Sod you
		
Click to expand...

He’s spot on.
Religion should be kept out of it imo.
It’s about a choice.
If your religious then don’t do it. That’s your choice.
But don’t stop anyone else having the choice.


----------



## stefanovic (Oct 23, 2021)

I agree that religious leaders should keep their noses out of this.
Religion is always based on the supernatural.
While you are free to believe this, there are others who understand reality.

How many people have ever existed before ourselves?
One answer given is close to 100 billion.
That represents an unimaginable amount of suffering leading up to death and just about all of them never had the drugs we have today.

Number of people just like us who died in religious wars inspired by clerics and holy books? 
Nobody knows for sure but we can be certain it runs into countless millions.
Which means that no religion can ever claim to stand on the moral high ground.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 23, 2021)

Don Barzini said:



			Puts me in mind of a meme I saw Ricky Gervais share on Facebook. It went something along the lines of:

Your religion says you can’t do something - OK

Your religion says I can’t do something - Sod you
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes, a few words says it all. Like above.
We have all waffled on here, using many sentences to put forward our arguments about assisted dying...for and against. The opponents to it haven't glaringly pushed their religion as being the reason they are against (but it seemed likely).

But the most telling summing up of our "debate" is there above.
And as true a statement as I have seen on this forum.


----------



## toyboy54 (Oct 23, 2021)

I've put a 'Like against Don Barzinis post quoting Ricky Gervais--
BUT, having had words with St. Peter about the accommodation on offer (on at least 5 occasions--and no, I'm not boasting!-it's in my records!),SWMBO and I are both agreed that an injection/ syringe full of air or even a razor blade across the wrist, carotid artery--these 2 would be messy,-----would be just the job!!
I would have no hesitation whatsoever!    Take that any way you want


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Oct 23, 2021)

My understanding of this is that it will only be possible once a person has a terminal illness and have 6 months or less to live.
I don't understand the desire to prolong someones suffering and death just to appease society. I certainly don't want to be a shadow trapped in a useless shell.


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 23, 2021)

toyboy54 said:



			I've put a 'Like against Don Barzinis post quoting Ricky Gervais--
BUT, having had words with St. Peter about the accommodation on offer (on at least 5 occasions--and no, I'm not boasting!-it's in my records!),SWMBO and I are both agreed that an injection/ syringe full of air or even a razor blade across the wrist, carotid artery--these 2 would be messy,-----would be just the job!!
I would have no hesitation whatsoever!    Take that any way you want

Click to expand...

There's a few on here that would gladly assist you Jimbo 😉


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 23, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			I agree that religious leaders should keep their noses out of this.
Religion is always based on the supernatural.
While you are free to believe this, there are others who understand reality.

How many people have ever existed before ourselves?
One answer given is close to 100 billion.
That represents an unimaginable amount of suffering leading up to death and just about all of them never had the drugs we have today.

Number of people just like us who died in religious wars inspired by clerics and holy books?
Nobody knows for sure but we can be certain it runs into countless millions.
Which means that no religion can ever claim to stand on the moral high ground.
		
Click to expand...

Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.

Whether some on here and many out there like it or not, many people seek the support and advice of their own religious leader, if they have one, when the very difficult sort of decision we are talking about has to be made.  The view of the religious leaders is therefore still very important - IMO - as they give a different perspective that can be helpful to some - perhaps many.

And btw I get pretty sick of hearing and reading all religion, denominations and traditions being damned as one as a result of the warped views and actions of some - often a very long time ago - whilst the huge amount of positive, beneficial and caring work that is done by the active religious community in the present day is ignored as if it was irrelevant.

Anyway…just had to get that off my chest…👍


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.
		
Click to expand...

But I thought you were advocating freedom of choice? If those suffering want to seek spiritual guidance from their church or chosen faith, that is entirely up to them. But what it doesn’t mean is that the church should be allowed freedom to interfere in the lives, or indeed deaths, of those who do not actively follow any faith.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.
		
Click to expand...

Fewer and fewer people look to spiritual support,  support is found elsewhere. You do, your friendship group may well do, but the rest of the country less so. You may look for advice from the archbishop, I don't want him to be anywhere near my life or public policy.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Fewer and fewer people look to spiritual support,  support is found elsewhere. You do, your friendship group may well do, but the rest of the country less so. You may look for advice from the archbishop, I don't want him to be anywhere near my life or public policy.
		
Click to expand...

Yes this .
The church leaders need to say no to the press when things like this come up.
Tend your own flock .


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2021)

I think the only way to sort this out is a referendum.
But we’re not great at accepting the results of them.
But it can’t just be left to politicians.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 23, 2021)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes this .
The church leaders need to say no to the press when things like this come up.
Tend your own flock .
		
Click to expand...

Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock.  Well I’ll tell you. Everyone.  Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice.  Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what will always be a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious.  Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock.  Well I’ll tell you. Everyone.*  Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice.  Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what for me is a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious.  But do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up.
		
Click to expand...

They may well see me as part of their flock. But they do not speak for me. It’s a really simple point.


----------



## toyboy54 (Oct 23, 2021)

williamalex1 said:



			There's a few on here that would gladly assist you Jimbo 😉

Click to expand...

Brilliant, just brilliant!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

Billysboots said:



			But I thought you were advocating freedom of choice? If those suffering want to seek spiritual guidance from their church or chosen faith, that is entirely up to them. But what it doesn’t mean is that the church should be allowed freedom to interfere in the lives, or indeed deaths, of those who do not actively follow any faith.
		
Click to expand...

But surely they should be entitled to a view on the matter.  Huge numbers of people throughout the World are members of a religion or support their views so why should their religious leaders not give pastoral advice on subjects like this.  I can understand some saying they disagree with the views but I'm struggling to see why it's none of their business.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 23, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			But surely they should be entitled to a view on the matter.  Huge numbers of people throughout the World are members of a religion or support their views so why should their religious leaders not give pastoral advice on subjects like this.  I can understand some saying they disagree with the views but I'm struggling to see why it's none of their business.
		
Click to expand...

I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 23, 2021)

Billysboots said:



			I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.
		
Click to expand...

Their views didn’t sway the abortion debate/act in the mid 60’s. They have even less influence now. If anything, their perceived interference will be inclined to harden opinion against their view.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

But that's the wa


Billysboots said:



			I’m absolutely not saying they shouldn’t be entitled to a view. But that view must not be allowed to sway the ultimate decision.
		
Click to expand...

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives.     Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

Hobbit said:



			Their views didn’t sway the abortion debate/act in the mid 60’s. They have even less influence now. If anything, their perceived interference will be inclined to harden opinion against their view.
		
Click to expand...

That's not the case with all religions though, some have huge influence on people's lives.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 23, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			But that's the wa

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives.     Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.
		
Click to expand...

So if it's not compulsory to be a member, and the majority are not, why should their opinion be allowed to have so much influence in the final decision?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock.  Well I’ll tell you. Everyone.  Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice.  Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what will always be a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious.  Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.
		
Click to expand...

No, they are the heads of particular "organisations ", I.e. Bodies of people that have similar or same views and aims.
They are not entitled to think they can guide or offer authoritative advice to the general populace. That is arrogance. They have had this position for far too long, all the time thinking it their right.
And it suited the powers that be in society, in order to keep control.
E.g. It cannot be considered, by anyone now thinking objectively, that the 
System used by the landed gentry, where the second son ( first being the heir) went into the Church because he was a devout believing Christian.
It was an out and out social order of power thing.
Organised religion has no more right than anybody else to determine the result on questions of this importance. Their place is in their Churches, not Parliament.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*Who do you think that most people go to *when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.

Whether some on here and many out there like it or not, many people seek the support and advice of their own religious leader, if they have one, when the very difficult sort of decision we are talking about has to be made.  The view of the religious leaders is therefore still very important - IMO - as they give a different perspective that can be helpful to some - perhaps many.

And btw I get pretty sick of hearing and reading all religion, denominations and traditions being damned as one as a result of the warped views and actions of some - often a very long time ago - whilst the huge amount of positive, beneficial and caring work that is done by the active religious community in the present day is ignored as if it was irrelevant.

Anyway…just had to get that off my chest…👍
		
Click to expand...

The answer to that question is There mother. ☹️When they are dying in the trenches. When there guts are hanging out. There comrades in arms spend all night listening to them crying for there mother 😢


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			But that's the wa

But that's the way religions work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives.     Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.
		
Click to expand...

And there in lies the problem, let me copy your post and change a word.

But that's the way *politics* work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives.  Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

It seems that politics and religion work the same way, you sign up to a political party or religion and lose the right to free speech.you have to follow the political or religious line. And that for me is so so wrong. Especially when it comes to medical decisions.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 23, 2021)

If you only want those organisations that have the support of a majority of the country to be permitted to have a say on important matters, then we are not going to have much public information giving and discourse of the sort we are not allowed to discuss here.  But hey…that’s different isn’t it…

And on that I’m out.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			So if it's not compulsory to be a member, and the majority are not, why should their opinion be allowed to have so much influence in the final decision?
		
Click to expand...

We are at will to ignore their opinion.  Some political parties have views on such matters, take the death penalty for example, the majority may be in favour of it but the Politic advise us that it's wrong.  We live in a free society where we can accept or reject the views of others, if religious organisations have leaders then it's not surprising that they will give interpretations on matters of life and death.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

Tashyboy said:



			And there in lies the problem, let me copy your post and change a word.

But that's the way *politics* work, they have a set of rules that members sign up to, the leaders teach them how these rules apply to the way they should live out their lives.  Fortunately it's not compulsory to be a member in this country.

It seems that politics and religion work the same way, you sign up to a political party or religion and lose the right to free speech.you have to follow the political or religious line. And that for me is so so wrong. Especially when it comes to medical decisions.
		
Click to expand...

You don't have to follow the religious line, it's your own decision if you do.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 23, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			No, they are the heads of particular "organisations ", I.e. Bodies of people that have similar or same views and aims.
They are not entitled to think they can guide or offer authoritative advice to the general populace. That is arrogance. They have had this position for far too long, all the time thinking it their right.
And it suited the powers that be in society, in order to keep control.
E.g. It cannot be considered, by anyone now thinking objectively, that the
System used by the landed gentry, where the second son ( first being the heir) went into the Church because he was a devout believing Christian.
It was an out and out social order of power thing.
Organised religion has no more right than anybody else to determine the result on questions of this importance. Their place is in their Churches, not Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

The most influential religions on people's lifestyles are not Christian any more and whether we like it or not their influence is not diminishing.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 23, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			As a generalisation I am afraid that this is such complete and utter rubbish that it hardly bears commenting upon.  So I won’t further.
		
Click to expand...

I would not be offended if you were to enlighten me. 👍


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Who do you think religious leaders consider their flock.  Well I’ll tell you. Everyone.  Whether you are of one denomination, tradition or another or none matters not a jot to most religious leaders - most (I cannot say all) will not turn you away if you seek their help and support and neither will they exclude you from their words of advice.  Whether you listen or not is up to the individual, but don’t tell them to simply to ‘talk to their own’ and not ‘talk to the press‘ - what utter tosh, and tosh that chooses to completely misunderstand the role and calling of any religious ‘leader’.

Plus as it happens in some traditions every member of that tradition is consider a spiritual ‘leader’, not just the vicars, priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals or whatever.

I am not going to debate further the role of religion in what will always be a very deep and difficult decision, and one that has for most a spiritual dimension, with spiritual being in the widest sense and not simply religious.  Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe but lots won’t.
That’s my point.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 24, 2021)

On the census form, I put "Golf" as my religion.

There are a set of rules and a code of conduct that I must follow.
There are millions of devotees around the world.
There are special places of worship and a recognised world centre in Scotland where many pilgrims go each year.
My holy day is Saturday, but I can worship any day between sunrise and sunset.
There are many learned people to offer help, advice or instruction for your chosen level of participation.

I don't know of the "golfing community" having taken a particular stance on assisted dying. I wish other groups would do the same. It only clouds a very real and important issue.

This is my personal view,
We are all going to die. The dying person should have their views and wishes respected as much as is legally possible. I want it to be so for me, when my time comes.
Let us always question and debate our laws and improve them according to an increase in human understanding.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 24, 2021)

The question of assisted dying is an extremely difficult one to come to a conclusion on, especially as I get older. Yes, I feel that I will know when the time is right and that'll probably be when there is no quality of life left, whether or not ill health is the cause of arriving at that point. Not being able to make that decision for myself is certainly a concern and that's the big debate, is the person being pushed to agree for the benefit of the family (or others) and not the person solely for themselves and that is the big issue, but not allowing assisted dying can be quite wrong, I believe, when it's clear that it's really "the time". How you decide that is a decision I hope never to be part of, and, finally, religion must have no part to play in the making of rules on this, if an individual, or family, are going to use religion to decide that's up to them but I personally dont want the CofE (or any other religion) to play any part in the overall "right or wrong debate" and any following legislation - I do not believe in any form of God and dont want my life ended, or not ended, with a Gods will playing any part in deciding.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



*We are at will to ignore their opinion.*  Some political parties have views on such matters, take the death penalty for example, the majority may be in favour of it but the Politic advise us that it's wrong.  We live in a free society where we can accept or reject the views of others, if religious organisations have leaders then it's not surprising that they will give interpretations on matters of life and death.
		
Click to expand...

We are NOT at will to ignore their opinion when the result of that opinion dictates that a law which may assist many is not passed because of their influence.  

They are actually free to not take advantage of such a law, were it to be passed, but their position seems to be to deny it to all rather than advise their followers that it would be wrong in the eyes of their God to do this.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*If you only want those organisations that have the support of a majority of the country to be permitted to have a say on important matters*, then we are not going to have much public information giving and discourse of the sort we are not allowed to discuss here.  But hey…that’s different isn’t it…

And on that I’m out.
		
Click to expand...

They are perfectly free to voice their opinion that it is not for them or their followers, but as a significant minority they should not be in a position to unduly influence the outcome of the debate.  Just as much as people are free to follow a religion, they would equally be free to endure a long, agonising death because their church tells them it is God's will, but it doesn't mean they should be in a position to enforce a long, agonising death on those who would choose to take their own life if the law permitted it.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 24, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			That's not the case with all religions though, some have huge influence on people's lives.
		
Click to expand...

We’re talking about the U.K., not Saudi. But for argument’s sake what proportion of British citizens in the U.K. are Muslim?

Religious influence in politics in the U.K. is negligible.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 24, 2021)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Please do not tell ‘religion‘ to shut up - indeed some might find something interesting and valuable to their life if they listened.
		
Click to expand...

Which religion are we talking about?
Is there going to be a ring of all religions around the hospital bed?
Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists etc
And if not, who chooses which religions should be represented?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 24, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			We are at will to ignore their opinion.  Some political parties have views on such matters, take the death penalty for example, the majority may be in favour of it but the Politic advise us that it's wrong.  We live in a free society where we can accept or reject the views of others, if religious organisations have leaders then it's not surprising that they will give interpretations on matters of life and death.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but give them from the pulpit, not Parliament.

And, have the guts to give the real reason they are objecting.i.e. That it is against their God's teaching, because it is their dogma etc...
Not fall back on other's practical, opposite views, e.g. Abuse by relatives, mental inadequacy, etc


----------



## bobmac (Oct 24, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Yes, but give them from the pulpit, not Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

Why are there 26 seats for the Lords Spiritual in the house of Lords?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 24, 2021)

I would guess that as many, and probably more, people are members of the AA, RAC or other breakdown organisations as are members of a church. Maybe the heads of the breakdown organisations should give their view on assisted dying as they represent as many people as church leaders?


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 24, 2021)

bobmac said:



			Why are there 26 seats for the Lords Spiritual in the house of Lords?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!  The why is answered as being from a time when the occupants were part of the ruling order of the Country. 
I think in most people's view now , they should not be there. They are a body whose views/raison d'etre the vast majority of the populace disagree with.


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 24, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Exactly!  The why is answered as being from a time when the occupants were part of the ruling order of the Country.
I think in most people's view now , they should not be there. They are a body whose views/raison d'etre the vast majority of the populace disagree with.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you, unfortunately the same could be said if our political parties who will have the final say on this.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 24, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Exactly!  The why is answered as being from a time when the occupants were part of the ruling order of the Country.
I think in most people's view now , they should not be there. They are a body whose views/raison d'etre the vast majority of the populace disagree with.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting that 
*1 Corinthians 14:34*
*34 *the *women should keep silent in the churches*. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

And yet...

Under the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 whenever a vacancy arises among the Lords Spiritual during the ten years (18 May 2015 – 18 May 2025) following the Act coming into force,* the vacancy has to be filled by a woman*, if one is eligible.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2021)

ColchesterFC said:



			I would guess that as many, and probably more, people are members of the AA, RAC or other breakdown organisations as are members of a church. Maybe the heads of the breakdown organisations should give their view on assisted dying as they represent as many people as church leaders?
		
Click to expand...

Yes but I would have thought Mark Zuckerberg and Geoff Bezos would be the first to be asked. ( based on numbers of followers in the UK)
But their not British.
Ask the people is the only way imo.
It’s us that it affects.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Exactly!  The why is answered as being from a time when the occupants were part of the ruling order of the Country.
I think in most people's view now , they should not be there. They are a body whose views/raison d'etre the vast majority of the populace disagree with.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree, the HOL can't go quick enough for me and by that I mean all of them but we can't pick and choose when they are of some use, many were praising their views on some subjects not so long ago.


----------



## stefanovic (Oct 24, 2021)

Surround yourself by as many people as you like (including your Facebook friends) but the stark reality is that we are born alone, we live alone, and we die alone.
Your imaginary friend above cannot help you either. You have been born to suffer and die. That is how evolution works.

As I believe in reality, I'm unmoved by any faith system.
Which god would I need to pray to?
There have been hundreds down the ages that people have taken refuge in.
How would I know the right one?
Should I take it for granted that the culture I happened to be born into has the one true god?

Yet I note that when I walk into a town centre, the people I find there are just one possible set among maybe a trillion possible sets that I could encounter.
This is because the number of people allowed for by our genes way outnumbers the total population.

For me to be here my parents had to meet and their parents did, and so on back in time through thousands of generations.
Yet here I am in my ordinariness, when countless millions of potential people never made it into life.
That would include people far greater than Shakespeare, Einstein, Newton.

So I don't need any extra reward in Heaven (or wherever souls go).
I have lived.
I'll take what is on offer to alleviate the pain of death when it approaches.


----------



## Captainron (Oct 24, 2021)

Religious leaders should have zero input into this legislation.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 24, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			So I don't need any extra reward in Heaven (or wherever souls go).
I have lived.
I'll take what is on offer to alleviate the pain of death when it approaches.
		
Click to expand...

2 more Ricky Gervais phrases....
Religious person...you have nothing to live for
RG...on the contrary, I have nothing to die for.

Religions greatest trick wasn't to get people to believe in God, it was to tell others you should never question the idea.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 24, 2021)

Captainron said:



			Religious leaders should have zero input into this legislation.
		
Click to expand...

Just like the separation of church and state across the pond (in theory), Shame it's not the same in practice.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2021)

Our political structure is what it is and as long as it remains this way there's no point in people bellyaching about it.  Bishops have been a part of the politic in this nation for well over a thousand years although the power they wield, just like the powers of all members of the HOL is limited and only a method of reviewing and recommending changes to law.  I would like to see the lot of them replaced by an elected second house. It's not just Peers from the church it's also the old boys and girls regime.


----------



## Fade and Die (Oct 24, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			Surround yourself by as many people as you like (including your Facebook friends) *but the stark reality is that we are born alone, we live alone, and we die alone.*
Your imaginary friend above cannot help you either. You have been born to suffer and die. That is how evolution works.

As I believe in reality, I'm unmoved by any faith system.
Which god would I need to pray to?
There have been hundreds down the ages that people have taken refuge in.
How would I know the right one?
Should I take it for granted that the culture I happened to be born into has the one true god?

Yet I note that when I walk into a town centre, the people I find there are just one possible set among maybe a trillion possible sets that I could encounter.
This is because the number of people allowed for by our genes way outnumbers the total population.

For me to be here my parents had to meet and their parents did, and so on back in time through thousands of generations.
Yet here I am in my ordinariness, when countless millions of potential people never made it into life.
That would include people far greater than Shakespeare, Einstein, Newton.

So I don't need any extra reward in Heaven (or wherever souls go).
I have lived.
I'll take what is on offer to alleviate the pain of death when it approaches.
		
Click to expand...

This view sounds very bleak and I cannot accept it. My first memories were of loving parents, and all my life I’ve had good friends, girlfriends and now a wife and children, I honestly don’t think I have ever been alone, and when the day comes to leave this life I do not think I will be alone. Part of living is dying, it is as natural as being born, and as a civilised society it is our duty to make the passing as easy as possible. My Mum died of cancer, it was horrible, we had the hospice at home service and the nurses were absolutely brilliant, the way they supported my dad and looked after her was wonderful. I was very relieved when they said it won’t be long now, and I do not know if it was experience or over medicating but they were right. The suffering was over.
It is the humane thing to do, anything else is surely just cruel?
Religion plays no part in my life but I recognise it has its place in society but it should not be included in making this decision.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 24, 2021)

Guys we need to keep politics out of the discussion, I know it is linked, but……..


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Our political structure is what it is and as long as it remains this way* there's no point in people bellyaching about it*.  Bishops have been a part of the politic in this nation for well over a thousand years although the power they wield, just like the powers of all members of the HOL is limited and only a method of reviewing and recommending changes to law.  I would like to see the lot of them replaced by an elected second house. It's not just Peers from the church it's also the old boys and girls regime.
		
Click to expand...

If enough people bellyache about it, those potentially making the laws may realise the true feeling of the country rather than the views of those who purport to be tending the flock and therefore speaking on behalf of it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			If enough people bellyache about it, those potentially making the laws may realise the true feeling of the country rather than the views of those who purport to be tending the flock and therefore speaking on behalf of it.
		
Click to expand...

Please don't take bits of my post out of contex.  I made it quite clear I am in favour of sacking the lot.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Please don't take bits of my post out of contex.  I made it quite clear I am in favour of sacking the lot.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not taking it out of context.  If you think I am then maybe you need to make your point a little more clearly.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			If enough people bellyache about it, those potentially making the laws may realise the true feeling of the country rather than the views of those who purport to be tending the flock and therefore speaking on behalf of it.
		
Click to expand...

They don’t really want to know how we feel.
It’s different from their views.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

clubchamp98 said:



			They don’t really want to know how we feel.
It’s different from their views.
		
Click to expand...

Probably, but at least we won't have accepted their view without comment.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			I'm not taking it out of context.  If you think I am then maybe you need to make your point a little more clearly.
		
Click to expand...

My point was made perfectly clearly.  Highlighting a line from it out of context to support your own was wrong.  You are of course entitled to disagree with me but please argue against the complete meaning.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 24, 2021)

Lads, lads, chill


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 24, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Lads, lads, chill
		
Click to expand...

Trust me as a City fan, I could not be more chilled. 😉😁


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2021)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Lads, lads, chill
		
Click to expand...

All chilled here Phil.


----------



## Robster59 (Oct 25, 2021)

I'm late into this but just for my twopennorth.  I watched my Dad die in front of my eyes in absolute agony.  The only way he could drink was a sponge on a stick dipped in water, he had to have a catheter fitted to allow him some relief and minutes before he died I watched his whole body writhe in agony at the pain that was going through him.  I haven't told any of my family this as there is no need for them to know how much he suffered.  But I know if my dad could have been allowed to die with a bit of dignity, he would have done.  He had already given instructions not to be resuscitated, and I would rather he passed away with some dignity of his own choice thank go through all the pain and agony he had over his final months.  
And having seen my father-in-law go through vascular dementia, and seeing the lifestyle he has, I would rather, if I was in that position, to go rather than put my family through the pain and anguish of watching me deteriorate.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 25, 2021)

Robster59 said:



			I'm late into this but just for my twopennorth.  I watched my Dad die in front of my eyes in absolute agony.  The only way he could drink was a sponge on a stick dipped in water, he had to have a catheter fitted to allow him some relief and minutes before he died I watched his whole body writhe in agony at the pain that was going through him.  I haven't told any of my family this as there is no need for them to know how much he suffered.  But I know if my dad could have been allowed to die with a bit of dignity, he would have done.  He had already given instructions not to be resuscitated, and I would rather he passed away with some dignity of his own choice thank go through all the pain and agony he had over his final months. 
And having seen my father-in-law go through vascular dementia, and seeing the lifestyle he has, I would rather, if I was in that position, to go rather than put my family through the pain and anguish of watching me deteriorate.
		
Click to expand...

So sorry to hear you had to go through that with your dad. For me, your words bring into stark focus what this is all about - not politics, religion, or any of that, but allowing us and our loved ones the choice in the right circumstances to die peacefully and with dignity rather than tortuously.


----------



## stefanovic (Oct 25, 2021)

It seems that animals can be humanely put down, but not humans in the eyes of religion.
Religion does not consider humans to be animals, but we are.
We share virtually the same genetics as other members of the ape family.
You wouldn't want to see a chimpanzee in pain, but a human?

So what happens when we die?
The body cools, rigor mortis sets in, our metabolism which has kept us going all our lives ceases, our molecules stop functioning, the body decomposes, the brain turns to liquid, the tongue protrudes.
Left unattended the corpse may become like a maggot farm. If buried underground it becomes worm and plant food until nothing is left other than teeth and skeleton.
That's the reality awaiting all of us.


----------



## oxymoron (Oct 25, 2021)

Robster59 said:



			I'm late into this but just for my twopennorth.  I watched my Dad die in front of my eyes in absolute agony.  The only way he could drink was a sponge on a stick dipped in water, he had to have a catheter fitted to allow him some relief and minutes before he died I watched his whole body writhe in agony at the pain that was going through him.  I haven't told any of my family this as there is no need for them to know how much he suffered.  But I know if my dad could have been allowed to die with a bit of dignity, he would have done.  He had already given instructions not to be resuscitated, and I would rather he passed away with some dignity of his own choice thank go through all the pain and agony he had over his final months. 
And having seen my father-in-law go through vascular dementia, and seeing the lifestyle he has, I would rather, if I was in that position, to go rather than put my family through the pain and anguish of watching me deteriorate.
		
Click to expand...

As Robster says above regarding his Fil, my dad went the same way its a cruel illness and a look at the dementia thread will enlighten people as to what the relatives have to go through .My dad always said "If i cant wipe my backside , i don't want to be here ". Loss of dignity ,memory and function as well as suffering pain are all things we don't want for our loved ones but we still put them through it when in a lot of cases the have made their wishes known previously but we cannot carry them out in todays "civilized " society .

A very emotive subject with no right or wrong , but looking at a parent in pain, confusion and fear gives you nightmares that last .


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 25, 2021)

Robster59 said:



			I'm late into this but just for my twopennorth.  I watched my Dad die in front of my eyes in absolute agony.  The only way he could drink was a sponge on a stick dipped in water, he had to have a catheter fitted to allow him some relief and minutes before he died I watched his whole body writhe in agony at the pain that was going through him.  I haven't told any of my family this as there is no need for them to know how much he suffered.  But I know if my dad could have been allowed to die with a bit of dignity, he would have done.  He had already given instructions not to be resuscitated, and I would rather he passed away with some dignity of his own choice thank go through all the pain and agony he had over his final months. 
And having seen my father-in-law go through vascular dementia, and seeing the lifestyle he has, I would rather, if I was in that position, to go rather than put my family through the pain and anguish of watching me deteriorate.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto with my mum, horrendously prolonged painful death that went on for weeks.

Her last words to the Ward Sister the night before she died, “are my kids ok?” She was in a hell of all hells at that point but she still thought of us…. Treasured words well remembered but she didn’t need to suffer the way she did.

She was a devout catholic, with all its trimmings, but she was also a retired nursing Sister. She had seen countless painful deaths and totally agreed with assisted death.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2021)

I understand that it's horrible to see loved ones die in pain, I've been through it with my family but what I still can't get to grips with is 'who takes the life'?  OK, someone who is compis mentis and fit enough to take a life-ending drink is one thing but what about all the cases where the person isn't. Take many of the cases discussed here, would a family member or a Nurse/Doctor administer the drugs, what protections would need to be in place to ensure it's not carried out for the wrong reasons.  Like the death penalty for criminals it's one thing to be in favour of it but another to ensure it's right beyond doubt.

Im not making this point lightly as I understand the anguish of seeing a loved one die in pain but I know I couldn't press the button and I couldn't expect someone else to either.   The comparison with animals is not a parallel in my opinion, I've broke my heart over dogs that we've had put down but it's not quite the same as your flesh and blood.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2021)

stefanovic said:



			It seems that animals can be humanely put down, but not humans in the eyes of religion.
Religion does not consider humans to be animals, but we are.
We share virtually the same genetics as other members of the ape family.
You wouldn't want to see a chimpanzee in pain, but a human?

So what happens when we die?
The body cools, rigor mortis sets in, our metabolism which has kept us going all our lives ceases, our molecules stop functioning, the body decomposes, the brain turns to liquid, the tongue protrudes.
Left unattended the corpse may become like a maggot farm. If buried underground it becomes worm and plant food until nothing is left other than teeth and skeleton.
That's the reality awaiting all of us.
		
Click to expand...

I think we're all aware of the death process but I'm not sure how that's relevant.


----------



## RichA (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand that it's horrible to see loved ones die in pain, I've been through it with my family but what I still can't get to grips with is 'who takes the life'?  OK, someone who is compis mentis and fit enough to take a life-ending drink is one thing but what about all the cases where the person isn't. Take many of the cases discussed here, would a family member or a Nurse/Doctor administer the drugs, what protections would need to be in place to ensure it's not carried out for the wrong reasons.  Like the death penalty for criminals it's one thing to be in favour of it but another to ensure it's right beyond doubt.

Im not making this point lightly as I understand the anguish of seeing a loved one die in pain but I know I couldn't press the button and I couldn't expect someone else to either.   The comparison with animals is not a parallel in my opinion, I've broke my heart over dogs that we've had put down but it's not quite the same as your flesh and blood.
		
Click to expand...

The idea of "taking a life" is the whole problem. Not everyone sees it that way. If it was a life well lived, why not allow it to end with dignity but without agony?
There are probably medical staff who already respect DNRs, withholding of food or switching off of life support who might not view the addition of a suitable drug to the persons IV as "taking a life" as much as facilitating a peaceful and dignified departure from life. 
I had the privilege of holding my Mum's hand as she died, after 3 days of mouth care and being unresponsive for the last 36 hours. She'd had dementia for several years.
Even unconscious, she was clearly in great physical distress for the last 10 minutes. I pity those of us who will be fully alert when it happens.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand that it's horrible to see loved ones die in pain, I've been through it with my family but what I still can't get to grips with is 'who takes the life'?  OK, someone who is compis mentis and fit enough to take a life-ending drink is one thing but what about all the cases where the person isn't. Take many of the cases discussed here, would a family member or a Nurse/Doctor administer the drugs, what protections would need to be in place to ensure it's not carried out for the wrong reasons.  Like the death penalty for criminals it's one thing to be in favour of it but another to ensure it's right beyond doubt.

Im not making this point lightly as I understand the anguish of seeing a loved one die in pain but I know I couldn't press the button and I couldn't expect someone else to either.   The comparison with animals is not a parallel in my opinion, I've broke my heart over dogs that we've had put down but it's not quite the same as your flesh and blood.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure it’s actually that relevant. I say that because assisted suicide, which as far as I am aware is what’s on the table here, is just that. Assisting someone to take their own life, just like the process at Dignitas.

Someone else administering the drugs because the dying person is incapable of doing so themselves is euthanasia - something entirely different and not, to my knowledge, even on the agenda. Perhaps with good reason.


----------



## RichA (Oct 25, 2021)

Good point, although for reasons I don't fully understand, I personally have fewer doubts about euthanasia of an unresponsive, soon to die person than I do about an elderly person potentially asking to have their life ended because they perceive themselves to be a burden. Nothing about this debate is simple.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 25, 2021)

RichA said:



			Good point, although for reasons I don't fully understand, I personally have fewer doubts about euthanasia of an unresponsive, soon to die person than I do about an elderly person potentially asking to have their life ended because they perceive themselves to be a burden. Nothing about this debate is simple.
		
Click to expand...

It certainly isn’t simple, that’s for sure!


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2021)

Billysboots said:



			I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure it’s actually that relevant. I say that because assisted suicide, which as far as I am aware is what’s on the table here, is just that. Assisting someone to take their own life, just like the process at Dignitas.

Someone else administering the drugs because the dying person is incapable of doing so themselves is euthanasia - something entirely different and not, to my knowledge, even on the agenda. Perhaps with good reason.
		
Click to expand...

I see it as relevant to what some are saying here.  A number of people have said that their loved ones died in pain and distress, some of these with dementia, some after strokes, some who are unconscious but obviously in pain and other debilitating conditions.  The posts suggest these people shouldn't have to die in this way but my point is 'who would end their lives for them'.  OK, I understand what you are saying regarding the person having to end their own life but I'm not sure that's what some others are saying.


----------



## Robster59 (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand that it's horrible to see loved ones die in pain, I've been through it with my family but what I still can't get to grips with is 'who takes the life'?  OK, someone who is compis mentis and fit enough to take a life-ending drink is one thing but what about all the cases where the person isn't. Take many of the cases discussed here, would a family member or a Nurse/Doctor administer the drugs, what protections would need to be in place to ensure it's not carried out for the wrong reasons.  Like the death penalty for criminals it's one thing to be in favour of it but another to ensure it's right beyond doubt.

Im not making this point lightly as I understand the anguish of seeing a loved one die in pain but I know I couldn't press the button and I couldn't expect someone else to either.   The comparison with animals is not a parallel in my opinion, I've broke my heart over dogs that we've had put down but it's not quite the same as your flesh and blood.
		
Click to expand...

My father was 92 and fully compos mentis and aware of his situation when he died.  One of the last things he said to me was to look after my mother (who is still going at the age of 98).  I remember Mum holding his hand the day before he died and repeating she loved him.  He could squeeze her hand to show he could understand, but by that time he couldn't speak.


----------



## Robster59 (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I see it as relevant to what some are saying here.  A number of people have said that their loved ones died in pain and distress, some of these with dementia, some after strokes, some who are unconscious but obviously in pain and other debilitating conditions.  The posts suggest these people shouldn't have to die in this way but my point is 'who would end their lives for them'.  OK, I understand what you are saying regarding the person having to end their own life but I'm not sure that's what some others are saying.
		
Click to expand...

If I'm being brutally honest.  If, at that time, I could have eased my Father's suffering, I would.  But the law does not permit that, so I couldn't.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I see it as relevant to what some are saying here.  A number of people have said that their loved ones died in pain and distress, some of these with dementia, some after strokes, some who are unconscious but obviously in pain and other debilitating conditions.  The posts suggest these people shouldn't have to die in this way but my point is *'who would end their lives for them'.*  OK, I understand what you are saying regarding the person having to end their own life but I'm not sure that's what some others are saying.
		
Click to expand...

Whoever the law decides can assist those terminally ill, but the choice is entirely that of the terminally ill person, not the family;

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ebates-assisted-dying-bill-at-second-reading/

Members of the Lords debated the main principles and purpose of the Assisted Dying Bill during second reading, on Friday 22 October.
The Assisted Dying Bill seeks to enable adults who are terminally ill* to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life*.

In a lot of the cases people have mentioned, where the person was not able to communicate their wishes, I believe the suffering would unfortunately have to continue, as it would in my mother's case.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 25, 2021)

I may be totally wrong but feel that assisted dying has been around for a long time. My father in law was really bad in hospital some years back and due to have a leg amputation due to diabetes,  he seemed to go down hill very quickly and was on much stronger doses of morphine and such like before surgery. Thankfully he passed away before the surgery


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I understand that it's horrible to see loved ones die in pain, I've been through it with my family but what I still can't get to grips with is 'who takes the life'?  OK, someone who is compis mentis and fit enough to take a life-ending drink is one thing but what about all the cases where the person isn't. Take many of the cases discussed here, would a family member or a Nurse/Doctor administer the drugs, what protections would need to be in place to ensure it's not carried out for the wrong reasons.  Like the death penalty for criminals it's one thing to be in favour of it but another to ensure it's right beyond doubt.

Im not making this point lightly as I understand the anguish of seeing a loved one die in pain but I know I couldn't press the button and I couldn't expect someone else to either.   The comparison with animals is not a parallel in my opinion, I've broke my heart over dogs that we've had put down but it's not quite the same as your flesh and blood.
		
Click to expand...

I cannot accept your point that while it is right and proper and compassionate to end someone's awful pain, ( that is your view is it?) , but it isn't something a Dr would be prepared to do. There have been many instances , not acknowledged for obvious reasons, where Drs have ended such lives out of compassion.
Stories from warfare, where terribly injured mates have been shot by compassionate soldiers, etc.
No one ever wants there to be a circumstance where a loved one needs such a compassionate ending, but I think you are overly concerned about a Drs apprehension of administering the final act of mercy, if all safeguarding parameters have been met.
You have again brought up the spectre of abuse of the system, where people are being unnecessarily 'knocked off' . But you know that many have accepted here that modern technology and minutely examined legislation would ensure that no Dr would be in a dangerous ambiguous situation.
Parameters such as,
Properly certified painful condition with no hope of alleviation: patient of certified sound mind making unequivocal wishes known ( video record , made in required conditions). Application for permission for assisted dying made to magistrate who , if agrees, issues the necessary document. Etc

It is not beyond the ken of Parliament to make good enough laws

So-- it's a no brainier, if compassion is allowed to override dogma


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I cannot accept your point that while it is right and proper and compassionate to end someone's awful pain, ( that is your view is it?) , but it isn't something a Dr would be prepared to do. There have been many instances , not acknowledged for obvious reasons, where Drs have ended such lives out of compassion.
Stories from warfare, where terribly injured mates have been shot by compassionate soldiers, etc.
No one ever wants there to be a circumstance where a loved one needs such a compassionate ending, but I think you are overly concerned about a Drs apprehension of administering the final act of mercy, if all safeguarding parameters have been met.
You have again brought up the spectre of abuse of the system, where people are being unnecessarily 'knocked off' . But you know that many have accepted here that modern technology and minutely examined legislation would ensure that no Dr would be in a dangerous ambiguous situation.
Parameters such as,
Properly certified painful condition with no hope of alleviation: patient of certified sound mind making unequivocal wishes known ( video record , made in required conditions). Application for permission for assisted dying made to magistrate who , if agrees, issues the necessary document. Etc

It is not beyond the ken of Parliament to make good enough laws

So-- it's a no brainier, if compassion is allowed to override dogma
		
Click to expand...

What happens on a battlefield or unofficially by a Doctor is nothing to do with what I've said. My point or question was, is it ethically right for someone with no decent quality of life and unable to end it themselves to have life ending drugs administered by someone else legally.     As I have pointed out a few times, some have mentioned loved ones with dementure or loss of movement who were in pain and distress having their lives ended.  I can understand fully their distress in seeing someone you love suffering, I've been there myself. I guess my question is 'Who would end their lives legally and would it be morally acceptable'.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			What happens on a battlefield or unofficially by a Doctor is nothing to do with what I've said. My point or question was, is it ethically right for someone with no decent quality of life and unable to end it themselves to have life ending drugs administered by someone else legally.     As I have pointed out a few times, some have mentioned loved ones with dementure or loss of movement who were in pain and distress having their lives ended.  I can understand fully their distress in seeing someone you love suffering, I've been there myself. I guess my question is 'Who would end their lives legally and would it be morally acceptable'.
		
Click to expand...

I think I answered that.  Most Drs , with the laws permission and safeguards, would do so, I believe.
They would see it as ending a painful intolerable death.
Of course, it's morally acceptable. As armed forces and Police may have to.
Descartes said, (wtte )
"All actions are in themselves indifferent. What makes them good or evil is the motive."


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I think I answered that.  Most Drs , with the laws permission and safeguards, would do so, I believe.
They would see it as ending a painful intolerable death.
Of course, it's morally acceptable. As armed forces and Police may have to.
Descartes said, (wtte )
"All actions are in themselves indifferent. What makes them good or evil is the motive."
		
Click to expand...

I just have to disagree, I don't believe they would be prepared to end life.  The motive may be good but the act unethical.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 25, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I just have to disagree, I don't believe they would be prepared to end life.  The motive may be good but the act unethical.
		
Click to expand...

So, what people under what circumstances are you prepared to say can end someone's  life without it being unethical?
Soldiers?
Police officers?
Doctors?
Others?

Or".."."..........Nobody?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			So, what people under what circumstances are you prepared to say can end someone's  life without it being unethical?
Soldiers?
Police officers?
Doctors?
Others?

Or".."."..........Nobody?
		
Click to expand...


The only person that has the right to say their life can be ended is the person whose life is being ended; no one else.

Assisted dying should only help those who are sufficiently _compos mentis_ to make their wishes to end their life known at that time or, if the legislature permits, who have made a legal living will stating the circumstances under which they would wish their life to be ended.  The lawyers, doctors and judges would then have to decide if those criteria have been met and can then arrange for the assisted dying to take place.

But no one gets to play God and decide for someone that their life will be ended.


----------



## Billysboots (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			So, what people under what circumstances are you prepared to say can end someone's  life without it being unethical?
Soldiers?
Police officers?
Doctors?
Others?

Or".."."..........Nobody?
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Police officers need to be struck straight off that list. Some can’t even be trusted to pay the going rate for a packet of Jaffa Cakes 😉


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			The only person that has the right to say their life can be ended is the person whose life is being ended; no one else.

Assisted dying should only help those who are sufficiently _compos mentis_ to make their wishes to end their life known at that time or, if the legislature permits, who have made a legal living will stating the circumstances under which they would wish their life to be ended.  The lawyers, doctors and judges would then have to decide if those criteria have been met and can then arrange for the assisted dying to take place.

But no one gets to play God and decide for someone that their life will be ended.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly right. . Because you are replying to my post, I don't know if you are under the impression that I think differently from what you have posted?

I don't.

If you read my previous posts I am advocating exactly what you have written.

My answer to SR ( which your post quoted) was concerning my understanding of SR position, ( that it was unethical for someone to physically end  someone else's life , in any circumstance, including a Dr administering a life ending drug.) and I was asking him to comment on circumstances where some people do end other person's lives.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			So, what people under what circumstances are you prepared to say can end someone's  life without it being unethical?
Soldiers?
Police officers?
Doctors?
Others?

Or".."."..........Nobody?
		
Click to expand...

Only themselves if they are capable.

I don't believe any other person should end another's life and I'm certain the medical profession would not do it ethically.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

Blue in Munich said:



			Whoever the law decides can assist those terminally ill, but the choice is entirely that of the terminally ill person, not the family;

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ebates-assisted-dying-bill-at-second-reading/

Members of the Lords debated the main principles and purpose of the Assisted Dying Bill during second reading, on Friday 22 October.
The Assisted Dying Bill seeks to enable adults who are terminally ill* to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life*.

In a lot of the cases people have mentioned, where the person was not able to communicate their wishes, I believe the suffering would unfortunately have to continue, as it would in my mother's case.
		
Click to expand...

Unless they had made a "living will" ( is it called?) where they indicate their wishes , if ever they became in the situation you describe in last paragraph ?
This living will could be a sworn document, the taking of which could  be recorded on video- easily done these days. However done, it should be very clear what the instructions of the person making it are.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Only themselves if they are capable.

I don't believe any other person should end another's life and I'm certain the medical profession would not do it ethically.
		
Click to expand...

You amaze me!  Let's be clear that we are talking about the same things.
IF I misunderstand you, I apologise, but your words are quite clear.
You say..." I don't believe any.......another's life"
In any circumstances?   Not just people who are ill, but in any circumstances your sentence above is what you mean?

You do realise that this means you disapprove of our Armed forces maybe having to kill enemies: armed police officers having to kill criminals killing or about to kill innocent citizens?
Because you believe it is unethical for one human to kill another in any circumstance?

If it weren't for the fact that some are ( and risked   and lost, their life doing it) , you  and we , wouldn't be here able to express that view, 😀


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			You amaze me!  Let's be clear that we are talking about the same things.
IF I misunderstand you, I apologise, but your words are quite clear.
You say..." I don't believe any.......another's life"
In any circumstances?   Not just people who are ill, but in any circumstances your sentence above is what you mean?

You do realise that this means you disapprove of our Armed forces maybe having to kill enemies: armed police officers having to kill criminals killing or about to kill innocent citizens?
Because you believe it is unethical for one human to kill another in any circumstance?

If it weren't for the fact that some are ( and risked   and lost, their life doing it) , you  and we , wouldn't be here able to express that view, 😀
		
Click to expand...

I can only return the comment that you amaze me.  The subject under discussion is regarding assisted suicide, I have not made or intended to make any comments regarding the police, armed services or anything else, if I intended it to cover these matters I would have made it clear that's what I meant.

To clarify again:
In relation to assisted suicide, I am not against someone who is able to end their own life doing so under controlled conditions when their quality of life is so bad and the legal conditions that apply are met.

I have also asked the question regarding people who due to their poor state of health couldn't physically or mentally carry out the act of taking a lethal end of life medication, I don't think another person should end their life and further I don't believe the medical professional bodies would agree to them doing it.

That's it, please don't read into my comments anything beyond what I've stated.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			I can only return the comment that you amaze me.  The subject under discussion is regarding assisted suicide, I have not made or intended to make any comments regarding the police, armed services or anything else, if I intended it to cover these matters I would have made it clear that's what I meant.

To clarify again:
In relation to assisted suicide, I am not against someone who is able to end their own life doing so under controlled conditions when their quality of life is so bad and the legal conditions that apply are met.

I have also asked the question regarding people who due to their poor state of health couldn't physically or mentally carry out the act of taking a lethal end of life medication, I don't think another person should end their life and further I don't believe the medical professional bodies would agree to them doing it.

That's it, please don't read into my comments anything beyond what I've stated.
		
Click to expand...

Right - that is clear ( different to what you have earlier said, but maybe brevity created a different understanding).
I do not read into comments. I understand what I read. I am a reasonable wordsmith and do not look for meanings other than what is written.
Finally, the thread heading is " Assisted Dying", somewhat broader than assisted suicide.😀


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Right - that is clear ( different to what you have earlier said, but maybe brevity created a different understanding).
I do not read into comments. I understand what I read. I am a reasonable wordsmith and do not look for meanings other than what is written.
Finally, the thread heading is " Assisted Dying", somewhat broader than assisted suicide.😀
		
Click to expand...

Its not different to what Ive said before. I have only rewritten it to try and clarify questions or misinterpretations.  You know well the thread from the OP was referring to assisted suicide and you should understand that nothing I have said or inferred related to anything else.

I don't want to keep repeating myself so let's leave it at that please.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

SocketRocket said:



			Its not different to what Ive said before. I have only rewritten it to try and clarify questions or misinterpretations.  You know well the thread from the OP was referring to assisted suicide and you should understand that nothing I have said or inferred related to anything else.

I don't want to keep repeating myself so let's leave it at that please.
		
Click to expand...

I can only understand what you mean by what you write . You should check that. You have done it before,, posts -104 to 106 refer.
Yes, we will leave it at that. No hard feelings 😀


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I can only understand what you mean by what you write . You should check that. You have done it before,, posts -104 to 106 refer.
Yes, we will leave it at that. No hard feelings 😀
		
Click to expand...

I can't leave that. You have now used some posts where someone took a line out of one of my posts and used it completely out of context.   That was talking about the HOL and how Bishops are part of the political process.  I believe I write what I mean and it's normally quite clear in that respect, often the problem is where someone reads into something without trying to understand but rather with a predetermined bias.   I'm not accusing you of that by the way.


----------



## RichA (Oct 26, 2021)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Right - that is clear ( different to what you have earlier said, but maybe brevity created a different understanding).
I do not read into comments. I understand what I read. I am a reasonable wordsmith and do not look for meanings other than what is written.
		
Click to expand...




Swinglowandslow said:



			...but you offer your view as if the goalposts have been moved.
They are where they've always been.
		
Click to expand...




Swinglowandslow said:



			I take your point. But the goalposts have moved a bit😀
		
Click to expand...

In the interests of understanding your wordsmithery, please can you clarify how many sets of goalposts there are and which of them have or haven't moved?


----------



## bobmac (Oct 26, 2021)

I wonder who will have the last word


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Oct 26, 2021)

Not me, oh er..... come  in somebody! 😂😂


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 27, 2021)

bobmac said:



			I wonder who will have the last word  

Click to expand...

He will!
Er! Wait a minute 🤔


----------

