Democracy and the right to die

[Denny Crane!]

The lords effectively blocked the right to die bill amid fears that it would be open to abuse. This is despite the fact that polls have shown 80% of the public support the bill. This has come about partly through a massive lobbying campaign by up to 500000 catholics known to have sent some form of plea to lords to block the bill.

1. Do you support the right to die bill? Why?

2. Do you think the government has the right to block what people want? What is the true meaning of democracy? Can I have peoples views of representative government.

Peter

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well it is open to abuse and I doubt very much that 80% of people support it.

[Denny Crane!]

Well it is open to abuse and I doubt very much that 80% of people support it.

Although the precise numbers have varied somewhat, nationwide polls have been unanimous in showing a majority to be in favour of legalised voluntary euthanasia, with highly respected sources showing support as high as 82% (British Social Attitudes Report, 1996).



Over half (59%) said there was good care for people in the later stages of a terminal illness, yet 76% were in favour of assisted dying as long as there were safeguards in place. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12052006/34...-die-bill.html

Google it

Yes, in principle I do. On the basis that while someone with the ability to do so themselves has every legal right to commit suicide or attempt to when and how they see fit, using what they see fit within reason, currently someone without the capablity to put themselves in such a situation whereby they will die cannot request to be aided in their wish to die. Nonresucitation orders are not, by the way, the same thing, for those who are wondering.

Something which ferrets brought up though and the reason it was blocked was the possibility of abuse in the system. I can see why they would worry but I think using Oregon as a case study the majority of people who ask for assisted suicide choose palliative care when it is offered as an alternative. In the cases of muscular dystrophy and degenerative diseases though I think it is essential.

Interesting question. If the majority wanted to kill all of a certain group, be it ethnic, religious, or whatever, should the govenment indulge them in this whim? No. But if the majority want to extend this sort of right to people, should the government block that right? I don't know, its a sticky situation. I think what the best government does is not do what the people wants but what it needs in terms of law, maybe...

The representative nature of governments cannot infringe (or shouldn't) on the natural law and rights of its citizens and this extends towards not allowing the murder of its citizens or other whims that impinge upon basic rights and freedoms. If the people want something which won't conflict with these ideas though I think the government is obligated to aquiesce to will of the people.

Peter

Merged double post-Valus

[Tom Paine]

1. Do you support the right to die bill? Why?

Yes, in principle I do. On the basis that while someone with the ability to do so themselves has every legal right to commit suicide or attempt to when and how they see fit, using what they see fit within reason, currently someone without the capablity to put themselves in such a situation whereby they will die cannot request to be aided in their wish to die. Nonresucitation orders are not, by the way, the same thing, for those who are wondering.

2. Do you think the government has the right to block what people want? What is the true meaning of democracy? Can I have peoples views of representative government.

Interesting question. If the majority wanted to kill all of a certain group, be it ethnic, religious, or whatever, should the govenment indulge them in this whim? No. But if the majority want to extend this sort of right to people, should the government block that right? I don't know, its a sticky situation. I think what the best government does is not do what the people wants but what it needs in terms of law, maybe...

[Tom Paine]

Something which ferrets brought up though and the reason it was blocked was the possibility of abuse in the system. I can see why they would worry but I think using Oregon as a case study the majority of people who ask for assisted suicide choose palliative care when it is offered as an alternative. In the cases of muscular dystrophy and degenerative diseases though I think it is essential.

Abuse of the system happens in any system. No system means people assissting others in dying would treated the same way Shipman was, as mass-murderers, and this makes no sense.

The representative nature of governments cannot infringe (or shouldn't) on the natural law and rights of its citizens and this extends towards not allowing the murder of its citizens or other whims that impinge upon basic rights and freedoms. If the people want something which won't conflict with these ideas though I think the government is obligated to aquiesce to will of the people.

is it? If something is to the definite detriment of the people but this people still wants such a thing then can we really deny them such things based on any law or democratic right? Yes, the government should be able to so do, whether or not it infrigenes upon the wills o others to not deny that want.

[Bwaho]

I know that if I ever became a vegetable or had some other devastating injury I would want to take my own life. I think's retarded to force people live when they are in pain and want nothing else than to die.

[Drunken]

I think that people should have the right to die, and when unable to facilitate it, ask someone else to kill them.
I dont think that the government should tell people when they can or cant die.

[Denny Crane!]

Abuse of the system happens in any system. No system means people assissting others in dying would treated the same way Shipman was, as mass-murderers, and this makes no sense.

No I did not mean abuse like that. The abuse in question is that certain people would feel obligated to die or would not be in a state to make rational decisions. I personally do not believe this but the lords evidently do.

is it? If something is to the definite detriment of the people but this people still wants such a thing then can we really deny them such things based on any law or democratic right? Yes, the government should be able to so do, whether or not it infrigenes upon the wills o others to not deny that want.

But we are not talking of things that are detrimental to the people unless of course we are using the right to die as an example and the government judges it to be detrimental to the people.

Using another example based on economic principles. If the people want to restore the link between pensions and earnings but the government decides it is not economically sound to do so are they obligated to follow what they believe is the best course of action or allocate money where people want it allocated?

Peter

[Tom Paine]

No I did not mean abuse like that. The abuse in question is that certain people would feel obligated to die or would not be in a state to make rational decisions. I personally do not believe this but the lords evidently do.

The same applies to nonassissted suicide but that is noticeably legal.

But we are not talking of things that are detrimental to the people unless of course we are using the right to die as an example and the government judges it to be detrimental to the people.

Using another example based on economic principles. If the people want to restore the link between pensions and earnings but the government decides it is not economically sound to do so are they obligated to follow what they believe is the best course of action or allocate money where people want it allocated?

I think they are obliged to follow the sound course of action, despite it being unpopular. That is their job; to do what they believe is best for the the country (not most popular, not best for themselves)

[Denny Crane!]

The same applies to nonassissted suicide but that is noticeably legal.

Not quite, you can't legislate against someone killing themselves hence its not illegal. When something becomes enshrined in law it becomes more acceptable, you would never feel obliged to slit your wrists if your were burdensome on your family but going to your doctor and asking for help in the form of barbituates is a very different thing. Research has shown that the majority of terminally ill people who request euthanasia are suffering from transient depression. The idea is that the bill would make suicide more accessible for people and encourage people who if otherwise not encouraged would not commit suicide.

Peter

[John Wayne]

I agree with both of them.

1. Do you support the right to die bill? Why?

It is a persons choice if they want to kill themselves, and they can do it without any 'legal' green light. The bill really just lessens that chances of men like Dr. Kevorkian (I think that is his name) will get arrested for murder.

2. Do you think the government has the right to block what people want? What is the true meaning of democracy?[/

Unfortunatly, yes. Those people were elected on the basis that their constituants agreed with what they are saying. It doesn't matter that '80%' of the masses supported the bill, only that their elected officials were not. And democracy....I think it was said best by President Abraham Lincoln USA, "A government for the people, by the people". Unfortunatly, politicians have sonsistently shown themselves to be inept at following this basic rule of democracy.

[Erik]

1. Do you support the right to die bill? Why?

I don't know enough about this bill to form an opinion on it.
Maybe somebody can explain so non-British people can debate?

2. Do you think the government has the right to block what people want?

yes, because...

What is the true meaning of democracy?

It means a majority can decide over things that infuence individuals.
It's not like Anarchy where everybody can make their own rules.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't know enough about this bill to form an opinion on it.
Maybe somebody can explain so non-British people can debate?

Euthanasia basically it is all self explanatory and it was revoked because of the possible abuse mentioned above and the lobbying campaign by catholics and church of england where they bombarded peers (unelected upper house who blocked bill) with anti euthanasia messages and propoganda.

yes, because...



It means a majority can decide over things that infuence individuals.
It's not like Anarchy where everybody can make their own rules.

Again I am not suggesting that the government could and should revoke the social contract if the public wanted it but they should listen to popular opinion on certain issues. If all you have is pure representative democracy than people become apathetic towards politics because there views are not represented all you have is people making decisions in your best interests. That is why we occasionaly have referendums and we have election campaigns based on popular issues (even if manifestos are not followed through on).

They are not there just to represent our best interests but to a certain extent our interests as well.

Peter

[removeduser_426582376423734]

There is a difference between Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, let me tell you Euthanasia is the ending of life of a terminally ill patient who cannot end his/her own life. Assisted Suicide is assisting a non-terminally ill (maybe mentally ill) person in killing him/herself.

[Denny Crane!]

There is a difference between Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, let me tell you Euthanasia is the ending of life of a terminally ill patient who cannot end his/her own life. Assisted Suicide is assisting a non-terminally ill (maybe mentally ill) person in killing him/herself.

It is a bill to allow anyone of competent mind to ask to be helped to die, though if you were not terminally ill I think the process would be made very difficult if it was allowed at all.

How is it not euthanasia? Because the doctor does not administer the drugs personally? I think you are getting mixed up between the difference of positive, negative and passive euthanasia.

Euthanasia comes from the greek language and means good death.

Peter

[removeduser_426582376423734]

No, I am not. I am just differentiating between what Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are. Euthanasia may mean a good death in Greek, and that is what it is, only when the patient is terminally ill and will die with pain and without dignity. Suicide is a completely different matter.

[Erik]

If it's about euthansia I think Britain should at least have clearer laws.

When we made clear euthanasia laws in the Netherlands we received a lot of criticism from other countries, but it has actually lowered our euthanasia rates and IIRC it's now the lowest of the western world (same with abortions, btw).

The religious right needs to get their heads out of the sand and realize that euthanasia is a part of their society already and it won't go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

[Denny Crane!]

If it's about euthansia I think Britain should at least have clearer laws.

When we made clear euthanasia laws in the Netherlands we received a lot of criticism from other countries, but it has actually lowered our euthanasia rates and IIRC it's now the lowest of the western world (same with abortions, btw).

The religious right needs to get their heads out of the sand and realize that euthanasia is a part of their society already and it won't go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

Agreed passive euthanasia has always been a feature, even palliative care is a form of euthanasia in the ever increasing doses of morphine until the body shuts down.

Peter

[Erik]

Agreed passive euthanasia has always been a feature, even palliative care is a form of euthanasia in the ever increasing doses of morphine until the body shuts down.

Peter

I'm not just talking about passive euthanasia.
There is a lot of active euthanasia in Britain too, dispite it being illegal.
I even think Britain has more active euthanasia than countries like the Netherlands and Belgium with their "liberal" (*) euthanasia laws have.

(*) our "liberal" euthanasia laws are actually very strict and limit euthanasia to only the most severe cases, and at the same time make it easier to prosecute doctors who don't follow these laws.

[Denny Crane!]

I'm not just talking about passive euthanasia.
There is a lot of active euthanasia in Britain too, dispite it being illegal.
I even think Britain has more active euthanasia than countries like the Netherlands and Belgium with their "liberal" (*) euthanasia laws have.

(*) our "liberal" euthanasia laws are actually very strict and limit euthanasia to only the most severe cases, and at the same time make it easier to prosecute doctors who don't follow these laws.

Eh? The only active euthanasia is the one I have mentioned in palliative care?

Peter