The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A.K.A. mercy killing.
I had to do an essay on the arguments for and against the legalisation of euthanasia in the UK today. After 1 week's research, 90 minutes of typing and 6 sides of A4 I have to say I'm thoroughly convinced that, with proper safeguards, euthanasia is the way to go rather than palliative care.
Surprising fact turned up by me during the research: Suicide was legalised (or should we say decriminalised) in 1961. There ya go, I never knew that.
I had to do an essay on the arguments for and against the legalisation of euthanasia in the UK today. After 1 week's research, 90 minutes of typing and 6 sides of A4 I have to say I'm thoroughly convinced that, with proper safeguards, euthanasia is the way to go rather than palliative care.
Surprising fact turned up by me during the research: Suicide was legalised (or should we say decriminalised) in 1961. There ya go, I never knew that.
Page:
I was under the mistaken impression that suicide was illegal.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> So what about suicide - is that governed by the exact same rules as
> euthanasia? I mean, if someone jumps off a building and doesn't die,
> technically they can be prosecuted for trying to end their life (if
> you put aside endangering other peoples lives).
Suicide is a legal act since the Suicide Act in 1961. For assisting someone to commit suicide, you get 14 years imprisonment. This is the strongest argument for legalising euthanasia, and one highlighted by the Diane Pretty case.
Put simply, if a patient is screaming in agony and a doctor knows that the patient will die within the next 48 hours, he'll administer an injection the primary intention of which is to kill the pain. If a side-effect of that is that the patient dies, the doctor shouldn't be subjected to an attempted murder/murder trial and face his career going down the pan.
In practice, the courts have only ever prosecuted once, and found a doctor guilty of attempted murder in these circumstances. The doctor in that case received a suspended sentence and is still practising. Since then, doctors have always successfully used the doctrine of double effect (it was a pain killer as primary, death as secondary) as their defence.
> So what about suicide - is that governed by the exact same rules as
> euthanasia? I mean, if someone jumps off a building and doesn't die,
> technically they can be prosecuted for trying to end their life (if
> you put aside endangering other peoples lives).
Suicide is a legal act since the Suicide Act in 1961. For assisting someone to commit suicide, you get 14 years imprisonment. This is the strongest argument for legalising euthanasia, and one highlighted by the Diane Pretty case.
Put simply, if a patient is screaming in agony and a doctor knows that the patient will die within the next 48 hours, he'll administer an injection the primary intention of which is to kill the pain. If a side-effect of that is that the patient dies, the doctor shouldn't be subjected to an attempted murder/murder trial and face his career going down the pan.
In practice, the courts have only ever prosecuted once, and found a doctor guilty of attempted murder in these circumstances. The doctor in that case received a suspended sentence and is still practising. Since then, doctors have always successfully used the doctrine of double effect (it was a pain killer as primary, death as secondary) as their defence.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> It was intelligent up until I stated abortion was illegal. I'm still
> checking that one, but I was reading a book written in 1994 that
> stated the fact. They changed the law since?
Abortion is legal. But there are guidlines for it.
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/1443233810.htm
> It was intelligent up until I stated abortion was illegal. I'm still
> checking that one, but I was reading a book written in 1994 that
> stated the fact. They changed the law since?
Abortion is legal. But there are guidlines for it.
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/1443233810.htm
So what about suicide - is that governed by the exact same rules as euthanasia? I mean, if someone jumps off a building and doesn't die, technically they can be prosecuted for trying to end their life (if you put aside endangering other peoples lives).
It was intelligent up until I stated abortion was illegal. I'm still checking that one, but I was reading a book written in 1994 that stated the fact. They changed the law since?
I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that I am enjoying taking part in an intelligent discussion on here - this is the first discussion of this kind in months for me.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> they've implemented it in europe somewhere - holland is it? how did
> it fare over there?
Old people are carrying "Don't Kill Me!" cards in case they get put into a hospital, such is their fear of being subjected to euthanasia as 'good medicine'. Aside from that it's going OK since it was introduced. It also kills off the pro-life argument that old people are going to request euthanasia because they feel a burden to society. Good on the Dutch OAPs!
> they've implemented it in europe somewhere - holland is it? how did
> it fare over there?
Old people are carrying "Don't Kill Me!" cards in case they get put into a hospital, such is their fear of being subjected to euthanasia as 'good medicine'. Aside from that it's going OK since it was introduced. It also kills off the pro-life argument that old people are going to request euthanasia because they feel a burden to society. Good on the Dutch OAPs!
they've implemented it in europe somewhere - holland is it? how did it fare over there?
I agree with euthanasia.
If someone wants to die, then they should have a right to be wheeled into hospital and given a lethal injection. If they needed the consent of 4 doctors or something i cant see it spiralling out of control.
If someone wants to die, then they should have a right to be wheeled into hospital and given a lethal injection. If they needed the consent of 4 doctors or something i cant see it spiralling out of control.
Belldandy wrote:
> How long before it's no longer just those who wish to die, but those
> that the majority of society deems not necessary ?
Logan's Run, anyone?
Your sentence above is one of the pro-life arguments and part of the slippery slope or wedge argument that is often used. Pro-choice counter-arguments deny the slippery slope effect, for example in The Netherlands, where euthanasia is practised, there has been no increase (according to official figures) in the amount of involuntary euthanasia taking place since it was legalised.
My personal opinion on this, from the research I've done, is that there simply isn't enough data to come to a conclusion. Both sides can bring out surveys (seemingly at the drop of a hat) showing figures either way, which is something I hate about statistical surveys. More data required on this methinks.
Lord Joffe's safeguards should prevent these kinds of scenarios occuring, however, so it's a mute point. For now.
> How long before it's no longer just those who wish to die, but those
> that the majority of society deems not necessary ?
Logan's Run, anyone?
Your sentence above is one of the pro-life arguments and part of the slippery slope or wedge argument that is often used. Pro-choice counter-arguments deny the slippery slope effect, for example in The Netherlands, where euthanasia is practised, there has been no increase (according to official figures) in the amount of involuntary euthanasia taking place since it was legalised.
My personal opinion on this, from the research I've done, is that there simply isn't enough data to come to a conclusion. Both sides can bring out surveys (seemingly at the drop of a hat) showing figures either way, which is something I hate about statistical surveys. More data required on this methinks.
Lord Joffe's safeguards should prevent these kinds of scenarios occuring, however, so it's a mute point. For now.
Page: