UKC

.... not about migrants but Archbishop Justin Welby's call to vote against The Assisted Dying Bill.

Its another person that wants to force religious dogma onto people without one jot of practical compassion for the people that live day after day in intolerable pain and with no end in sight.

In reply to Indy:

Its a difficult one again!

In reply to Indy: there are grounds to be wary of assisted dying though - threats of coercion of the vulnerable, handling people with depression. Religion should stay out of the mix tho'

Except do we, as a society, need to respect the sanctity of life?

In reply to wbo:

We can let our pets go when they are suffering but not our parents. I agree it needs to be carefully managed, but we all have to go eventually. Quality of life matters.

In reply to Indy: yes, but define quality of life. Those in a coma, with dementia?
I agree it should be there, but protecting the vulnerable is essential

In reply to wbo:

I agree that protections are essential, but quality of death is part of quality of life.

i haven't seen or read ABC Welby's contribution to the debate, but I also think that he should be part of it, essentially because having a debate where all participants share an ideological background limits its scope.

In reply to wbo:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/terry-pratchett-assisted-sui...

In reply to wbo:

We will, in the not very distant future, not have a choice to respect the sanctity of life due to sheer numbers of the human race.By then we will have become vermin, if we are not already such. So the next big thing to try to sort is the background to ever increasing numbers of us, which will include all the religious anomalies and illogical approaches to the human inhabitation of the earth.(At least the pope has recently moved a little nearer to being less flexible with regard to abortion and related topics.(I am not suggesting abortion as a way of population control))
So eventually it could be that there is a life-length quota for each of us. So we could have a cut-off point of say, 85 years, after which you will be euthanized in the best possible state sponsored deathly way.
In due course the age will come down a little to accommodate the overall world population.
Perhaps you could gain a couple of years back if you agreed to act as a tissue culture incubator to supply hospitals with necessary replacement parts/tissues.(But then is that increasing the number of survivors unnecessarily?)

Oops I think that I went off on a tangent.

Euthanasia and planned dying do have a reasonable role to play in our society and the worries raised by others can be addressed by a very tight control of the situation.

In reply to Indy:

I should really have gone off climbing.

In reply to Indy:

I knew both of these people. Salt of the earth, lovely to be around but they made their decision and I respect that. Beyond that I almost don't have an opinion on the issue.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-14/i-should-have-been-allowed-to-do-this-at...

In reply to Indy:

I think the archbishop has the right to express a view and to be heard and respected as the spokesperson of an organisation with a substantial membership that has relevant experience of these matters and has come to that view through a democratic process. Is that what he is though, or would he claim to be the spokesperson of "God"?

Martin

In reply to Indy:


I don't think his reason is purely religious. One of the main arguments from the pro life side of things is that with the right support, many people who want to die can still lead fulfilling lives. I have no doubt that there are many examples where this is true.

That said - I am still in favour of having the choice. What I don't understand is why this whole debate sees the medical profession at its centre. Why do doctors have to be involved? Can we not train assisted dying practitioners to do the job?