Assisted Dying

[[XAP]Bob]

Other than the fact that they are both difficult moral/ethical issues, I don't think that drawing parallels between assisted dying and abortion is in the slightest bit helpful.

I'm intrigued why not.
They are both issues involved with the ethics of deliberately doing harm.

They are both things that are being proposed as having "strong legal safeguards" - history shows us that said safeguards are usually taken from a point where only a few people are unhappy (grave and lasting harm) to the point where they may as well not exist.

I suppose you have to look at 'harm' in all it's aspects. Harm to a parent who didn't want the baby against harm in prolonging someones pain and suffering.
It's not an easy choice

It’s not an easy judgment- and that’s what it is - a judgment on the amount of harm to one life that justifies harm to another.

You could reasonably say that live organ donation goes against “do no harm” - but that’s very much consensual and designed to do no lasting or significant harm (ignoring the trolley problem versions).
Assisted dying is in some respects easier than abortion, since there is only one life to consider.

But the parallel is, I would argue, valid. We have gone from a situation where abortion was outright banned (and that’s not a good place to be, it simply forces the issue underground) to one where many would suggest that it’s far too easy to obtain. I’ve never had to go through the process, but the statistics above certainly make me uncomfortable with how easily available it is.

What grates even harder is the simultaneous spend on fertility treatment and abortions (a non zero number on the same person).

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

There is no one simple answer to any of the problems in this thread…

[Carlton green]

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

There is no one simple answer to any of the problems in this thread…

I would agree with others in that to my mind terminations confuse the issue.

I would agree that a 25% increase in (the current) birth rate is not a good thing. I would also agree with the concept of keeping sex within committed relationships, but that’s easy for an old married man to say ... and when younger I had different perspectives. I would point out that the people that I know who have had terminations were in committed relationships.

There are no simple answers to the questions posed in this thread, which is why I’m hesitant to encourage any change from as is. As above I think that the best way forward is the review and monitoring of best practice and social trends in other countries.

[pete75]

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

[Cowsham]

I often thought about the last scenes in the film Blade Runner ( original version ) where the replicant Rachael ( I had a girlfriend (18 ) at the time who looked very much like the character hence the interest in the film) was due to be terminated but I think flew off with Harrison Ford in the end.

If scientists had discovered the secret to eternal youth but due to overcrowded earth you had to be terminated painlessly at say 70 would you take that option?

I certainly would.

[thirdcrank]

Kicking it further down the path is simply the soft option. Lots of people don't like the thought of dying and for those who believe in resurrection in one form or another the manner of dying can be important. (I wonder if some of the founders of religion were concerned that if they didn't control access to the attractive afterlife lots of people would take that option.)

The fact remains that we are getting pretty good at prolonging physical existence when for an increasing number of survivors, the cogniscent (?) brain is dead, even if it continues to keep things working, just about.

[[XAP]Bob]

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

It's a concept that has long existed. It might not always have been followed by everyone. Keeping one's trousers on until marriage/civil partnership isn't actually that difficult.

[Carlton green]

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

It's a concept that has long existed. It might not always have been followed by everyone. Keeping one's trousers on until marriage/civil partnership isn't actually that difficult.

I believe that it is a concept that has both long existed and long been both quietly and not so quietly worked around. It’s a bit like Priests shafting Choir Boys, it used to happen but was not talked about and typically wilfully concealed - I can’t express my disgust here at the Clergy involved for to do so would have me immediately banned. I do find it somewhat rich that a Church with such people in it decides that divorce is unacceptable and that so is contraception, etc. IMHO Religious Leaders - of any faith - shouldn’t automatically be considered to be pillars of virtue and infallible guides for the rest of us to follow. As such their pronouncements on assisted dying need to be carefully and critically considered, and certainly not considered as the ultimate in moral guidance.

As for not having sex before marriage well it’s not really what this thread is about and responsible loving relationships are not defined by marriage or civil partnership. I’m married and had just a few ‘partners’ before settling down, my view has always been: how compatible are we (two) and if she gets pregnant would I be happy to marry (fully support) her and care for the child. I would advise people not to sleep with anyone else on an opportunist or casual basis but rather to thoughtfully consider and nurture an enduring and loving relationship. Of course that’s easy for an old married man to say and hard on an emotionally driven young ‘Buck’, but I’ve found my philosophy to be sound and am glad to have followed it. YMMV.

[pete75]

I don’t think we could deal with a 25% increase in birth rate, but I also think that the concept of keeping sex to within committed relationships is one which has been thrown out and this is one of the more obvious consequences.

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

It's a concept that has long existed. It might not always have been followed by everyone. Keeping one's trousers on until marriage/civil partnership isn't actually that difficult.

And I guess you're the sort who won't test ride a bike before buying it.

[Cowsham]

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

It's a concept that has long existed. It might not always have been followed by everyone. Keeping one's trousers on until marriage/civil partnership isn't actually that difficult.

And I guess you're the sort who won't test ride a bike before buying it.

I did exactly that wrt the pinnacle Arkose R2 -- we don't have a branch of Evans in NI --- a lot of careful thought went into the decision and it was a perfect match -- I love her.

[Cowsham]

It's a concept that has never existed. What has changed is there is now much less hypocrisy about it.

It's a concept that has long existed. It might not always have been followed by everyone. Keeping one's trousers on until marriage/civil partnership isn't actually that difficult.

I believe that it is a concept that has both long existed and long been both quietly and not so quietly worked around. It’s a bit like Priests shafting Choir Boys, it used to happen but was not talked about and typically wilfully concealed - I can’t express my disgust here at the Clergy involved for to do so would have me immediately banned. I do find it somewhat rich that a Church with such people in it decides that divorce is unacceptable and that so is contraception, etc. IMHO Religious Leaders - of any faith - shouldn’t automatically be considered to be pillars of virtue and infallible guides for the rest of us to follow. As such their pronouncements on assisted dying need to be carefully and critically considered, and certainly not considered as the ultimate in moral guidance.

As for not having sex before marriage well it’s not really what this thread is about and responsible loving relationships are not defined by marriage or civil partnership. I’m married and had just a few ‘partners’ before settling down, my view has always been: how compatible are we (two) and if she gets pregnant would I be happy to marry (fully support) her and care for the child. I would advise people not to sleep with anyone else on an opportunist or casual basis but rather to thoughtfully consider and nurture an enduring and loving relationship. Of course that’s easy for an old married man to say and hard on an emotionally driven young ‘Buck’, but I’ve found my philosophy to be sound and am glad to have followed it. YMMV.

The Roman Catholic Priesthood your on about there -- make the distinction. There's been a very few prod versions but not on the scale of the RC's. It was systemic there.

[[XAP]Bob]

And I guess you're the sort who won't test ride a bike before buying it.

Yes, I would test ride a trike before buying, although I haven't always done so.

However one doesn't end up with a connection with every bike you test ride, you might also reasonably expect to have more than one bike at a time, and none of them would mind.


The suggestion that partners are objects to be owned and traded away is not one that carries any truck with me.

[Carlton green]

“The Roman Catholic Priesthood your on about there -- make the distinction. There's been a very few prod versions but not on the scale of the RC's. It was systemic there.”

I don’t believe that others denominations and faiths are completely without fault but as far as I’m aware The Roman Catholic Church has rather a lot to answer for. The current Pope seems very unhappy with much that has gone on, but he’s now getting too old to change much and those around him appear (to me) to be unwilling to sort the issues out.

“The suggestion that partners are objects to be owned and traded away is not one that carries any truck with me.”

As I read the other person’s comment that suggestion wasn’t raised in my mind. However I would echo your thoughts.

I’m unsure of the current situation but to my mind emotional education is sadly lacking in our schools and parents don’t have the knowledge and skills themselves. Society wise we consider sex and associated areas as things to exploit rather than cherish with understanding. As a parent I feel for young people of both genders and would advise them against both having their emotions messed up in a relationship and to take care not to mess someone else up too. Sadly such responsibility seems not to be promoted - the reverse if anything - and unusual, but IMHO is should be a social norm.

What does all of this have to do with assisted dying? Nothing much beyond pointing out that religious leaders, faiths, demonisations and people in general aren’t really to be that trusted with ethical issues.

[thirdcrank]

My apologies for introducing the subject of abortion: my only excuse is that I was trying to illustrate how quickly things can change when a ban is modified. Although it's a cycling forum, I didn't think the discussion would extend to "bikes" - so, sorry.

[pete75]

And I guess you're the sort who won't test ride a bike before buying it.

Yes, I would test ride a trike before buying, although I haven't always done so.

However one doesn't end up with a connection with every bike you test ride, you might also reasonably expect to have more than one bike at a time, and none of them would mind.


The suggestion that partners are objects to be owned and traded away is not one that carries any truck with me.

It's a suggestion that you really need to find out if you're compatible in that respect. Nothing to do with objects.

[[XAP]Bob]

How incompatible can two people be?
The mechanics are fairly well understood and pretty consistent across very wide populations.