The proposed law is only available to people with a terminal illness judged to have 6 months or less to live, needs to be signed off on by two doctors and a judge, and the patient needs to take the drugs themselves. If anything it’s potentially too restrictive, but a step in the right direction.
Except this is nothing like the procedure Canada has in place.
People seeking this out need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, it needs to be approved by two doctors and a judge, I believe it has to be brought up by the patient, etc.
“If we allow terminally ill the choice to die painlessly and with dignity, we’re actually welcoming doctors telling anybody with any ailment to kill themselves” is a wild take.
You can apply the same fallacy to practically any law. It’s absurd.
“They’ve introduced an age of consent?? This is a slippery slope! Soon the government will prevent all reproduction!1”
“They’ve introduced a 70MPH national speed limit?? This is a slippery slope! Soon you’ll only be able to travel at 5mph! More 15 minute city dystopia!!”
One of the biggest arguments against women getting the right to vote was that it would be a slippery slope that would lead to society becoming matriarchal and men becoming subservient to women.
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.
You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.
You’re advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.
I’ve worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That’s what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.
If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you’d have this “we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn’t have.”
Regardless, it’s pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.
Lol you’re just trolling now. You don’t even know how those work.
Calling out the slippery slope argument for being the nonsense that it is is not an example of circular reasoning.
Me sharing my experience and saying that I think you’d have a different view if you had seen what I’ve seen is not an anecdotal fallacy - that is where you use anecdotes and try to represent them as objective facts.
I didn’t dismiss your view via ad populum fallacy, I just said it’s pointless moaning about the idea of people dying painlessly if they choose because the debate has already been settled by MPs and the public don’t have the appetite to have them backtrack on it.
The appeal to authority fallacy is about dismissing an opinion as being invalid because an authorative figure days otherwise. That’s not what I said. I said the debate has been settled, so it’s pointless campaigning against right now.
Why do you want people to suffer for as long as possible? What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised? Is there any evidence? Because “they just will mate. Slippery slope innit.” isn’t one IMO.
It’s not possible for that to happen in the UK without a further bill in Parliament. I believe in Canada the law has changed as a result of decisions by the courts.
Canada has gone too far in terms of who is eligible for assisted suicide in many people’s opinions. For example people who are mentally ill are able to request assisted suicide from the state.
I mean mental illness can cause plenty of suffering so I don’t see why it should be excluded. As long as that person can give fully informed consent the same as other conditions.
Suicide is not assisted, leaves a mess for those that discover a corpse, EMT’s and others to clean up. Someone’s suffering might end when they jump in front of a train but the train driver’s suffering only just begins at that point.
Suicide is often an unmanaged, chaotic process which causes trauma. It also often fails whilst leaving those that attempt it in bad physical shape. A law like this reduces the necessity of discussing, normalizing or enabling suicide because there is a safe and properly counseled path out of a no-win situation for those that truly need it. A policy on containment when there are probably household cleaners that could do the job effectively with a small amount of chemistry knowledge is absolutely insane - and if someone truly is in that much pain, they’ll find a way. Families and loved ones also have time to work through grief and loss rather than getting the wind knocked out of them when they hear the news.
The fact that we’ve hit a point where we can even have a discussion about this is probably something that should be celebrated, rather than being so totalitarian and controlling that we effectively force people to live even when they’re in enormous pain.
I’d hoped nobody would come to the conclusion that was the core argument, but it is a consideration.
And I would like to draw attention to the totalitarian nature of our attitudes towards suicide. It’s been enforced heartlessly for a very long time - if you commit suicide, you’ll go someplace worse. It’s this, it’s that. All ultimately to remove the last escape for people who are in some form of extreme physical, mental, emotional or existential pain to the point where they don’t believe there’s another solution.
I’d sooner discuss why we have those attitudes - maybe it’s so we get a free pass to be extractive and shitty whilst simultaneously denying the people we abuse even the dignity of leaving on their own terms.
There was a case like that somewhere in Europe earlier this year. I think it was in the Netherlands, but it was a young woman who had numerous mental health issues that were causing her real suffering and she would probably have done the deed herself at some point.
It was only about the second time it had been approved, and required a lot of time and numerous doctors to sign off on their being nothing they could do to help her professionally.
It made me feel quite uncomfortable, but then thinking about it logically she met all of the criteria, the only real question was about confirming she knew what she was doing.
Yeah it’s the so-called slippery slope argument people are making that countries which have legalised assisted dying so far have tended towards making increasingly more people eligible over time.
Conflicted on that tbh. Slippery slope is one of the classic logical fallacies but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t happen.
Wow, unexpected. Finally some boldness to be humane about end-of-life situations.
I just hope it comes with sensible checks and balances.
The proposed law is only available to people with a terminal illness judged to have 6 months or less to live, needs to be signed off on by two doctors and a judge, and the patient needs to take the drugs themselves. If anything it’s potentially too restrictive, but a step in the right direction.
The main concern is turning into Canada
Except this is nothing like the procedure Canada has in place.
People seeking this out need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, it needs to be approved by two doctors and a judge, I believe it has to be brought up by the patient, etc.
It will be eventually, if we’re not careful. The capitalists are gradually trying to normalise it.
So the slippery slope fallacy, got it.
“If we allow terminally ill the choice to die painlessly and with dignity, we’re actually welcoming doctors telling anybody with any ailment to kill themselves” is a wild take.
You can apply the same fallacy to practically any law. It’s absurd.
“They’ve introduced an age of consent?? This is a slippery slope! Soon the government will prevent all reproduction!1”
“They’ve introduced a 70MPH national speed limit?? This is a slippery slope! Soon you’ll only be able to travel at 5mph! More 15 minute city dystopia!!”
One of the biggest arguments against women getting the right to vote was that it would be a slippery slope that would lead to society becoming matriarchal and men becoming subservient to women.
It’s a silly fallacy.
It’s not a fallacy. It literally happened in Canada.
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.
You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.
You’re advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.
I’ve worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That’s what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.
If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you’d have this “we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn’t have.”
Regardless, it’s pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.
Circular reasoning fallacy
Anecdotal fallacy
Ad populum fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
Lol you’re just trolling now. You don’t even know how those work.
Calling out the slippery slope argument for being the nonsense that it is is not an example of circular reasoning.
Me sharing my experience and saying that I think you’d have a different view if you had seen what I’ve seen is not an anecdotal fallacy - that is where you use anecdotes and try to represent them as objective facts.
I didn’t dismiss your view via ad populum fallacy, I just said it’s pointless moaning about the idea of people dying painlessly if they choose because the debate has already been settled by MPs and the public don’t have the appetite to have them backtrack on it.
The appeal to authority fallacy is about dismissing an opinion as being invalid because an authorative figure days otherwise. That’s not what I said. I said the debate has been settled, so it’s pointless campaigning against right now.
Why do you want people to suffer for as long as possible? What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised? Is there any evidence? Because “they just will mate. Slippery slope innit.” isn’t one IMO.
It’s not possible for that to happen in the UK without a further bill in Parliament. I believe in Canada the law has changed as a result of decisions by the courts.
Explain?
Canada has gone too far in terms of who is eligible for assisted suicide in many people’s opinions. For example people who are mentally ill are able to request assisted suicide from the state.
I mean mental illness can cause plenty of suffering so I don’t see why it should be excluded. As long as that person can give fully informed consent the same as other conditions.
So why do we have suicide hotlines, then?
Suicide is not assisted, leaves a mess for those that discover a corpse, EMT’s and others to clean up. Someone’s suffering might end when they jump in front of a train but the train driver’s suffering only just begins at that point.
Suicide is often an unmanaged, chaotic process which causes trauma. It also often fails whilst leaving those that attempt it in bad physical shape. A law like this reduces the necessity of discussing, normalizing or enabling suicide because there is a safe and properly counseled path out of a no-win situation for those that truly need it. A policy on containment when there are probably household cleaners that could do the job effectively with a small amount of chemistry knowledge is absolutely insane - and if someone truly is in that much pain, they’ll find a way. Families and loved ones also have time to work through grief and loss rather than getting the wind knocked out of them when they hear the news.
The fact that we’ve hit a point where we can even have a discussion about this is probably something that should be celebrated, rather than being so totalitarian and controlling that we effectively force people to live even when they’re in enormous pain.
So the problem with suicide isn’t people taking their own life, but the mess they leave behind? How heartless is this attitude?
I’d hoped nobody would come to the conclusion that was the core argument, but it is a consideration.
And I would like to draw attention to the totalitarian nature of our attitudes towards suicide. It’s been enforced heartlessly for a very long time - if you commit suicide, you’ll go someplace worse. It’s this, it’s that. All ultimately to remove the last escape for people who are in some form of extreme physical, mental, emotional or existential pain to the point where they don’t believe there’s another solution.
I’d sooner discuss why we have those attitudes - maybe it’s so we get a free pass to be extractive and shitty whilst simultaneously denying the people we abuse even the dignity of leaving on their own terms.
There was a case like that somewhere in Europe earlier this year. I think it was in the Netherlands, but it was a young woman who had numerous mental health issues that were causing her real suffering and she would probably have done the deed herself at some point.
It was only about the second time it had been approved, and required a lot of time and numerous doctors to sign off on their being nothing they could do to help her professionally.
It made me feel quite uncomfortable, but then thinking about it logically she met all of the criteria, the only real question was about confirming she knew what she was doing.
Well that seems like a bad idea
Person,: “I’m suffering paranoid delusions that the state is out to get me and want to end my life!”
The state: “well, we’ll be happy to help…”
Yeah it’s the so-called slippery slope argument people are making that countries which have legalised assisted dying so far have tended towards making increasingly more people eligible over time.
Conflicted on that tbh. Slippery slope is one of the classic logical fallacies but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t happen.
It usually does. The entire idea is to avoid suffering, not to add to it