Accrington Web - View Single Post

Staveros · 06-10-2005, 23:57

In all seriousness I wrote an article on the subject for a piece of coursework about a year ago so it is an issue I am familiar with.

My view is that I believe the current legal position should remain.
Firstly, as some have mentioned, from a legislative point of view, it is something that is impossible to 'police' 100 per cent effectively and would therefore be open to abuse.

There have been numerous cases of people who are supposedly clinically 'dead' awakening from comas after years to go on and live a good standard of life. Just one such case should be enough to knock the argument on the head. You cannot 'play God' with an issue as precious as the human life. Quite simply there is no going back. Likewise degenerative diseases. How can a person KNOW for sure how they will feel WHEN they do reach a certain stage of an illness?? Clearly such decisions would have to be made at a relatively early stage BUT how can one say for sure that they wouldn't want to reverse that decision down the line?? What then??

Also, who would be responsible for actually performing these 'mercy' killings?? It would HAVE to be the doctors wouldn't it. Should a doctor have such a responsibility though?? Would they WANT such a burden?? After all it goes against the hippocratic oath.

IMO the law is something that supposedly provides a certainty by which you can arrange your affairs. An issue like this is impossible to bring that level of certainty to though.

You simply cannot go around making ad hoc decisions on something as precious as the human life, its a non starter for me.

06-10-2005, 23:57	#36
Staveros Full Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 156 Liked: 0 times Rep Power: 0	Re: Euthanasia. In all seriousness I wrote an article on the subject for a piece of coursework about a year ago so it is an issue I am familiar with. My view is that I believe the current legal position should remain. Firstly, as some have mentioned, from a legislative point of view, it is something that is impossible to 'police' 100 per cent effectively and would therefore be open to abuse. There have been numerous cases of people who are supposedly clinically 'dead' awakening from comas after years to go on and live a good standard of life. Just one such case should be enough to knock the argument on the head. You cannot 'play God' with an issue as precious as the human life. Quite simply there is no going back. Likewise degenerative diseases. How can a person KNOW for sure how they will feel WHEN they do reach a certain stage of an illness?? Clearly such decisions would have to be made at a relatively early stage BUT how can one say for sure that they wouldn't want to reverse that decision down the line?? What then?? Also, who would be responsible for actually performing these 'mercy' killings?? It would HAVE to be the doctors wouldn't it. Should a doctor have such a responsibility though?? Would they WANT such a burden?? After all it goes against the hippocratic oath. IMO the law is something that supposedly provides a certainty by which you can arrange your affairs. An issue like this is impossible to bring that level of certainty to though. You simply cannot go around making ad hoc decisions on something as precious as the human life, its a non starter for me.