What Shows Or Programs Do You Miss From...
TV1 min ago
A Stay Of Execution For Grannies.....
79 Answers
...put the extermination booths on hold for now.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.TTT, why don't you go and read some of the Court of Protection decisions on the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment and see just what goes into such a decision. Instead of reading popular press and scare mongering articles, and making bold statements that "it never goes tighter" look at some of the judgments (which will only be after many hearings in a lot of cases).
I absolutely do take your point, I really do but I think your argument is weakened by sweeping statements. I have real concerns about assisted dying but I do believe that with appropriate regulations and safeguards a sensible solution could be found.
You posted,
"I am talking of the executions that innevitably follow if this is allowed."
'Pretty soon it's "grab grandad they have a 2 for 1 deal down at extermination R us"'
"I am talking of the executions that innevitably follow if this is allowed."
"Basically it's execution by coercion."
At no point did you put the words, execution, executions or extermination in "scare quotes" to indicate their usage.
When you then posted, "You have to be a monumental pilchard to think it really is an execution." you were clearly referring to yourself...
TTT, if I want assistance with dying, why would you want to take that option away from me? You seem to think that you know better than me about me, when you don't even know me.
Me taking my option does not mean that you have to take the same option. My choice is independent of your choice. The point is that we should both have a choice.
TTT, challenges in the Court of Protection (which is the only thing we have which might be relevant) in this country give the person a voice. That Court strives to ensure the person at the heart of the case is heard - either by himself or by representation by the Official Solicitor. That Court also is very alive to the issues of coercion and control and is very much aware that what a family member wants might not be in the bests interest of that person.
You are, of course, completely wrong in your assessment that participants do not come out stronger. I am quite disappointed that someone of your obvious and professed intelligence prefers to trot out journalistic hyperbole from the internet rather than actually looking at how any such law might work from its actual source.
ellipsis: "TTT, if I want assistance with dying, why would you want to take that option away from me?" - I don't if you are compos mentis then great. My point on this is always fear of where it leads. As I have said many times all the cases presented I agree 100% if they want to shuffle off great, they can. My objection is based on human nature, to push the envelope, to test the limits, it's where this will lead that disturbs me. We have 2 very good example nations to study. Pretty soon right to die becomes obligation to die. Eventually we are in fascist euthanasia country.
You have to live the life, be it in pain or a disability so severe as to render you hopeless. You shouldn't be obliged throw yourself off a bridge to terminate your existence. Dignity is more than an ideal, it's the right to choose when, where and how you'll leave this wretched world. Regarding avaricious conniving relatives, we were shafted to the tune of £400,000 by the loving vultures in a feeding frenzy. You can't take it with you. Gimme Gimme, mine, mine.
> I don't if you are compos mentis then great ... As I have said many times all the cases presented I agree 100% if they want to shuffle off great, they can.
OK so it seems like right to die is acceptable to you.
> My objection is based on human nature, to push the envelope, to test the limits, it's where this will lead that disturbs me. We have 2 very good example nations to study. Pretty soon right to die becomes obligation to die. Eventually we are in fascist euthanasia country.
OK so now it seems like right to die is not acceptable to you.
It's not clear, but I think you're saying that assisted dying is OK as long as there are stringent safeguards in place. Is that right?
The right to die is acceptable to me but if we allow it we also allow the path that leads where I and I hope any right thinking person thinks is not acceptable. Euthanasia for all the invalid reasons that the spectrum of human nastiness can inflict.
"t's not clear, but I think you're saying that assisted dying is OK as long as there are stringent safeguards in place. Is that right?" - if they were immutable then yes but we know they are not and cannot ever be under our judicial system. As I discuss above the goal posts can and will be moved
You cannot have a "one size fits all" type law for this type of thing. Every single decision must be fact and context sensitive and by its very nature it should be so. I do not think that it should be unchallengable, since challenges cut both ways. I do think that any provision ought to require judicial scrutiny which in my view would help protect against those with nefarious motives. I know that TTT has a dim view of lawyers and the judiciary, but I would invite him to read some of the CoP judgments which ought to demonstrate that the cases dealt there are dealt with compassionately and sensibly.
There is a world of difference between an 85 year old with a terminal illness who is suffering hugely and wishes to end his/her suffering before it worsens and an 85 year old who has been repeatedly told that they are a burden on their family and they feel they must "do the right thing". If the law is immutable the one concerned relative would be unable to challenge it on behalf of the latter.
" I do think that any provision ought to require judicial scrutiny which in my view would help protect against those with nefarious motives. " - it won't and it cannot, as ably demonstrated in Belgium and Canada.
barmaid do you ignore the examples? Or do you perhaps think that we would not fall into the same traps?
Yes I do have a dim view of the legal profession and indeed the judiciary. The former do no function we cannot do ourselves, there is nothing in law that needs a lawyer yet they leach off misery. The the latter are distilled from the former. This is just the sort of thing that they would use to generate "fruitful work".
In Canada and Belgium assisted dying may be accomplished without judicial intervention and requires only the medics. I am talking about a system whereby someone who wishes to die to have it independently assessed by a Judge - this is not dissimilar to the work the Court of Protection does in some areas. It is protective.
I am not ignoring the articles you have posted, I am identifying the potential differences which it seems you have failed to do. I am suggesting that this is one way that protection can be had for those who need it. I say again have a look at some CoP judgments.
I completely get that you think that lawyers feed off people's misery. As do mechanics when someone's car breaks down, plumbers when someone has a leak, electricians when re-wiring is needed, the vet when your animal is ill, the IT software engineer when your company's software does not do what it ought, the tree surgeon when a large branch looks like it may fall. Being a lawyer is one of the oldest professions. Sadly, unlike the oldest profession we cannot choose our clients.
> if they were immutable then yes but we know they are not and cannot ever be under our judicial system
It seems, then, that you think that the right to die is acceptable in theory but not acceptable in practice because of the inability of the legal profession and the judiciary to look after it properly.
The legal system is one of the pillars of state. If you don't trust it, you've got a lot more problems then new legislation around assisted dying - it covers pretty much everything that is existing, new or changed in society. It's going to be tricky on AB to say "Yes, that's a nice idea but we can't do it because we can't trust the legal system" because then we'd always be talking about the legal system, rather than the OP of the day ...
ellipsis: "It seems, then, that you think that the right to die is acceptable in theory but not acceptable in practice because of the inability of the legal profession and the judiciary to look after it properly." - By Jove I think he's got it!
"The legal system is one of the pillars of state. If you don't trust it, you've got a lot more problems then new legislation around assisted dying -" - It's not so much that I don't trust the legal profession it's that I don't trust the general nasties not to use them to move the goal posts.
> It's not so much that I don't trust the legal profession it's that I don't trust the general nasties not to use them to move the goal posts
It's the same thing in practice. The legal system is either secure enough to enact legislation that is helpful to many people, like assisted dying, or it is not. I believe that it is.
I agree with Ellipsis. There are always "nasties" who will find a way to abuse a system intended to benefit deserving people. The benefits systems is an good example of this where benefits intended to help people who genuinely find themselves in difficult cicumstances are acquired by undeserving people by stretching the rules eg, "finding" themselves out of work or pregnant. This does not mean that there should not be a benefits system, just that it should be properly monitored.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.