SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
So what happens if they're not physically able?If it was anything like Dignitas the patient has to be able to administer the drugs to themselves.
So what happens if they're not physically able?If it was anything like Dignitas the patient has to be able to administer the drugs to themselves.
So what happens if they're not physically able?
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.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 .
I said I was convinced.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.
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.
‘
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.
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.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.
Indeed, and why my view is not settled.
‘Indeed‘ as in I understand the logic of that point of view but I am not (yet) convinced that my instinct is wrong.I don't get that. If "indeed" means you agree with what I've written, what's there to be unsettled about?
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.
He’s spot on.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
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
There's a few on here that would gladly assist you Jimbo ?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
Who do you think that most people go to when they are in need of spiritual support…now let me think…ah yes.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.