Assisted Dying: Archbishop Welby Urges Mps To Reject Bill

[naomi24]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34166605

I think he's utterly wrong. What do you think?

[ToraToraTora]

he is 100% correct. We do not want to open this can of wor

[ToraToraTora]

....ms, The implications are terrifying.

[naomi24]

It doesn't seem to be producing terrifying results elsewhere, TTT.

[tamborine]

He is powerless over w/e admissions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34156469

[sandyRoe]

I agree with you.
looks apprehensively at the heavens to see if they're still in place

He might do well to muse on Nunc dimittis, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace.

[ToraToraTora]

whenever this comes up, the argument needs re focusing. Yes the highlighted cases probably should be allowed but that is not the point. The point is that if we allow this it’s forever and down the line the parameters would be tested. How long before we have people wheeling granny up to “wekillanygranny.com” to get her bumped off for the legacy? Extreme? Perhaps but that’s the can of worms you open, pretty soon right to die becomes obligation to die.

[Svejk]

It does produce results elsewhere, that have been predicted to happen here, but we are always assured by the pro campaign will never happen here. eg, death on demand.(for (physically) healthy people)

[naomi24]

TTT, for years doctors have been helping terminally ill people to die in peace and dignity - just not legally.

[woofgang]

I think he's utterly wrong too. I think its only his business to comment on what he thinks members of his brand of religion should do....and I say this as someone who believes in the existence of god.
The can of worms is already open and people are assisted to die every day in our hospitals and hospices and homes, usually, in my limited experience kindly, rightly and with the best intentions BUT its neither acknowledged or subject to any kind of openness or external control. Its time that it was.

[ToraToraTora]

yes naomi, the current system works. It's just that every now and then someone has a song and dance about it and we have the same argument. I do not want to live in such a world.

[Zacs-Master]

And how would you propose to control it Woof?

[jackthehat]

I think he's wrong.

We need some serious grown-up discussions to enable the best and safest framework to be designed; and not knee-jerk bombast and doom-mongering...

[woofgang]

The current system doesn't work because the person (people) at the centre of it are not in control of it unless allowed to be. Zacsmaster there is a book by Terry Pratchett called "Shaking hands With Death" which covers the subject better than I ever could.

[Svejk]

Doctors did assist people to die (I believe Harold Shipman put an end to a lot of that) And none* were prosecuted, so the system worked.
*The handful of doctors who were prosecuted were suspected of 'offing' healthy patients for financial gain. You will remove the possibility of the police investigating such cases.

[Zacs-Master]

Woof, I see TP was an advocate of the tribunal panel system but even he says 'It would need wiser heads than mine, though heaven knows they should be easy enough to find, to determine how such tribunals are constituted'.

It's the exact mechanics / constitution I'm interested in. The only way I can see this happening is by it being enshrined in law.

[mikey4444]

I think he is wrong as well, but this Bill, if it ever translates into law, will need very careful consideration. He is right, however, to urge caution, in order to protect the vulnerable.

[Sqad]

HE is wrong in my opinion. Healing the sick is only one small part of the function of a society, the main and primary function is the relief of pain and allowing someone to "die with dignity" if they so wish.

The relief of pain is not such a problem but even so the benefits of Pain Clinics still fail some patients.

Neurological disorders, with patients not being able to swallow, speak and no control of bladder functions pose the greatest problems and here, dying with dignity becomes an important issue.

Safeguards are essential and these are not beyond the bounds of the legal profession in consultation to work out stringent conditions.

For the past 60 years doctors have been "helping people to die without pain and with dignity.........why not make it legal?

It will become Law.

[mikey4444]

Sqad...the voice of common sense !

[andy-hughes]

I think the Archbishop is wrong, because I believe he is mixing up the concepts of suicide and assisted dying.

Suicide is open to everyone currently breathing in and out. It is a choice to end a life for the reasons only the individual understands, believing that although their body is perfectly healthy, and may last to a ripe old age, they wish to exercise their option to find peace in the only way they believe they can.

That is a universe away from facing a slow and agonising death which you know is going to come within the next few months, and will see you and your relatives tortured by a premature end which cannot be avoided, prolonged to its bitter and painful end with no respite, or prospect of making a decision to die now, in less pain and suffering, than then, when the suffering and pain are utterly unbearable.

If your job is to be an Archbishop, you spend your life distinctly apart from the rest of the world on two ways. In one way, your opinion is looked to for guidance by people who believe you are right, even when simply human fallibility means that on occasions you will be unequivocally wrong. In another way, you raison d’etre is to spend life pondering concepts of life and death, with your daily life devoted to little else.

Anyone who’s nine-to-five consists of thinking about life and death and god and evil and God and the Devil must develop a much deeper (and potentially seriously over-thought and analysed) point of view, but that does not make that viewpoint right – it’s still just a viewpoint.

And I believe it is a wrong viewpoint.

[woofgang]

I agree with you Andy with one addition. If you believe in a religion to an extent that you are a "professional" in it and a senior one at that, its going to be difficult, if not impossible to do that nine to five thinking from an unbiased viewpoint. I would say the same about professional atheists. Both start from the basis of a belief that an aspect of the world is this way or that way and this has to colour their thinking.

I also think that the "noes" are in a position of "I don't agree with this so you shouldn't be able to do it" whereas the yes position seems to me to be " I think people should be allowed this choice"