Absolutely! I would have been only too happy to be there for my brother and my father, if that’s what they would have wanted. And, in a way, I did help my father on his way, by talking to the doctors in hospital about letting him come home to die. Which they finally agreed to.
2 Likes
Firstly, let me say that I do not think that anyone should be required to be involved in the process of the death of another unless they wish to be so involved.
If my wife, or indeed my child, were to be suffering from a confirmed terminal illness and suffering a long drawn out and inevitable end to their life, and if they were asking me to help them end their life to end their suffering, then I would do it. Would I do this out of convenience for myself, of course not. I would do it because of my love for them. I would be full of sadness, and probably crying, but I would do it out of love. Hold their hand, wish them well on their journey, but end their torment. Surely it is the only compassionate thing to do.
8 Likes
And that’s the fallacy neatly expressed. Not just you, @Robert_Hodge , but every person who has expressed support for the proposal.
“I am happy with the proposal and therefore it should pass into law, and I am not prepared to contemplate any risks.”
Would those who think that what the majority wants should become law apply the same principle to capital punishment?
One shouldn’t interpret acceptance of risk as not comtemplating it. One can be aware but continue on. It’s not necessarily dismissing risk to do that.
1 Like
A truly beautiful statement.
1 Like
Interesting study, even if (as I read it) its conclusion was “We don’t really know [the effect MAiD will have on healthcare professionals]”.
The point I raised was in relation to lay people administering the produit, so I guess the conclusion would have to be that we know even less. And that doesn’t take into account the possibility that one child might want to administer the produit, while another is dead against it.
I would, Yes. The will of the majority is what democracy is all about. Those who feel that a minority opinion should prevail against the will of the majority are always free to leave and go and live elsewhere.
For democracy to exist the will of the majority MUST prevail.
2 Likes
That is not permitted in the French proposals. Must be the person themselves of a willing medical professional.
1 Like
Sorry, I’d read in a summary that a third party might administer the legal dose, but you’re (of course) correct: it has to be a doctor or nurse.
Don’t think so, the 48% minority opinion aren’t free to just bugger off to the EU… By definition, because the 52% said ‘I want to take your rights (to do that) away.
And there are human rights treaties against capital punishment - not least because of the number of innocent people killed. (or would be killed).
I’m sorry, but I really don’t think that it is appropriate to divert this conversation onto any single issue.
Surely, the core issue is whether or not one wishes to live within a democratic society where the will of the majority prevails.
In a democracy one sometimes finds oneself in accord with the majority, which is pleasing, and at other times one finds oneself in the minority. In the latter case one has to decide whether or not the democratic principle is preferable to some other form of government in the place in which one resides, and so sometimes we choose to accept that our personal view does not always win the day.
The form of democracy prevalent in the UK is by no means perfect, but no-one is forced to remain there by the UK itself if they wish to leave.
In reality, most countries are representative democracies so laws are passed based on the majority views of those elected to government rather than the general populace. Sometimes those majorities coincide, other times not so much.
Exactly.
I think it’s legitimate for a Parliament not to follow (current) public opinion on moral questions.
The question then arises, on what basis does a Parliament legitimately ignore public opinion?
In France, there’s no palliative care centre in about a fifth of the departements in France.
Everywhere, there’s an ever-increasing cost to our living longer lives.
Cui bono?
They’re elected on a manifesto, which would suggest that public opinion supports at least the broad lines of that manifesto. Unless we’re going to go down the Swiss line of endless referendums (referenda?) then there isn’t really any other way to reliably guage public opinion for legislation purposes.
1 Like
Members of Parliament are just human beings who happen to have been elected. Becoming an MP does not automatically bring with it an increased ability to determine what is, or is not, morally correct.
MPs are supposed to represent the views and wishes of all their constituents, not just those with whom they themselves happen to agree.
When the public are forming themselves into groups to support a particular issue, and when they are writing to their MP about it, then the correct thing for the MP to do is to listen. I don’t think it is right for an MP to set themselves up as being sort of ‘holier than thou’ when it comes to moral issues.
That’s quite an emotional leap from my simple statement of fact.
You seem to be suggesting that the loudest faction gets to set the agenda. A few letters in green ink doesn’t necessarily reflect the majority.
It may be idealistic, but my expectation is that political leaders set a vision and lead, not just follow the crowd. So, as I said, every 5 years they describe that vision in a manifesto and the public votes on the party (or, more accurately, MP ) that best reflects their values.
At the end of the day, MPs are representatives not delegates.
Obviously, this is UK-centric but the principle applies in many democracies.
1 Like
Actually, I wasn’t feeling emotional in any way, and just for the record, at present I feel quite cool, calm, and collected.
No, I do not believe that the loudest faction should set the agenda, but rather that it should be the largest one.
Setting a vision and leading is fine, but the problem comes when the politicians simply do not wish to even consider a matter which is nevertheless important to the public. I suspect that the issue of the right to die is one that is considered too risky by many of the politicos.
I agree with you that MPs are representatives, and that is precisely why they should represent the view of the majority of their constituents and not venture into telling folks that they know best.
At the end of the day it is my life. I am entitled to live it, and as suicide is no longer a crime I am entitled to bring it to an end. I’m just not allowed to do it in a certain way, or to enlist some help to bring about what is inevitable in any case. It’s just illogical and plain daft. Of course I do recognise that some folks have objections to that, and thus I don’t expect anyone to be required to help me, but if my helper is OK with it, then why should their act (usually out of compassion), be criminalised.
2 Likes
Which goes back to the question of how they reliably ascertain what the majority view is, post-election.
Is it the faction that writes the most letters? The view of the press baron who best stirs up the public? Something else?
In that case, you’ll recognise that a representative uses their judgement unlike a delegate who follows instructions.
1 Like
As well as the difficulties you cite, there’s the perhaps bigger one of the manipulation of public opinion by the media.