Anti-euthanasia campaigners point out the what if you have a relative who just wants to bump off their elderly Mum and Dad without their consent? This happens in practice anyway, and often goes undetected as a 'natural death'. That isn't choice anymore than being forced to live is.
I'd rather be able to have on record what my wishes are in a situation where my quality of life is too low to want to be here anymore. How is that much different from people who have Do Not Resuscitate on their medical charts? Ad astra per aspera
Given the uproar that ensues when euthanasia or assisted suicide is debated, I don't think it is likely for the state to develop a narrative along the lines of "don't you think it's time you toddled off now, you burdensome thing?" It would be a severe breach of human rights to put pressure on people to die.
I suppose you can argue that the state does that with severely disabled babies by removing medical care that keeps the child alive. Perhaps withdrawal of care for elderly people would be a similar approach but they certainly couldn't actively end a life and legally get away with it.
The process of removing care and medical attention from either elderly or terminally/chronically ill people without their consent would be challenged (I hope).
One of the problems for the UK is that these issues are hidden and taboo. You don't talk about death. You don't openly look at the options. You don't admit that a burden has become too much and you need out - for both the ill person and anyone who is caring for them. It is the lack of openness I think that poses more of a risk for people. Ad astra per aspera
Human Rights - everyone has the right to life. For a public discourse to develop in favour of pressurising individuals to go before they are ready would involve continuous and systemic breaches of human rights legislation at all levels. The UN exists to monitor prevent such abuse by states.
Try to replace "life" in this case with "asylum if their country of origin is unwilling or unable to protect them against persecution."
Are you still optimistic?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The arguments are very similar on both sides of the coin. Stay alive, face abuse and indignity and not have the choice to go. Or have the choice to go and potentially be forced into taking that option sooner rather than later.
I don't think that my wish to make the choice to go when I am ready should criminalise someone else. But whether I stay or go, there is always the potential for wrongdoing.
How common do you think it would be for people to make such a choice? As pointed out elsewhere people can choose to refuse medical intervention. Choosing to cut short a prolonged period of pain and ill health is just one step on from that. Ad astra per aspera
