The Official Morality Thread

deiseach · August 17, 2012, 10:23:09 AM

Quote from: tbrick18 on August 17, 2012, 10:15:23 AM
Morality and legality don't always go hand in hand.
Morally, yes I think it would be better to let this poor man make his own decision to end his life. It is morally right to let him die on his own terms rather than forcing him to endure a long slow death. The biggest problem with that as I see would be to find someone ethical and capable of assisting him in his task. How would you convince a doctor to do this?

Legally, I think it's wrong and rightly so. If there was a law which permitted assisted suicide in certain circumstances it would open a whole can of worms. There would be extenuating circumstances in some instances and others where the perception of one person may be that it is morally right to end the life of a disabled person and the law could protect them.

There's certainly no right and wrong to this IMO.

If there was any law to come in, it should be one which dictates that such cases should be heard before a judge and that the judge has the legal authority to approve assisted suicide given the evidence supplied. So in this case, a man of sound mind wanting to end his life could be permitted, but someone who is not of sound mind or who's family find it too much of a burden to look after a disabled family member it would not be permitted as it is not within the persons ability to make their own choice.

+1

theskull1 · August 17, 2012, 10:25:12 AM

The man is of sound mind. I'm sure as well as just wanting to die he also reflects on the drain (emotional, physical and financial) he is on his family. I know I would think that way.

nifan · August 17, 2012, 10:34:49 AM

If I was in such a situation id want to go, and let them have whatever organs can be saved for others.

Orior · August 17, 2012, 11:09:09 AM

In terms of ending a person's suffering, I think there is a big difference between switching a machine off to do it, and switching a machine on to do it.

Hardy · August 17, 2012, 11:50:37 AM

Quote from: tbrick18 on August 17, 2012, 10:15:23 AM
Morality and legality don't always go hand in hand.
Morally, yes I think it would be better to let this poor man make his own decision to end his life. It is morally right to let him die on his own terms rather than forcing him to endure a long slow death. The biggest problem with that as I see would be to find someone ethical and capable of assisting him in his task. How would you convince a doctor to do this?

Legally, I think it's wrong and rightly so. If there was a law which permitted assisted suicide in certain circumstances it would open a whole can of worms. There would be extenuating circumstances in some instances and others where the perception of one person may be that it is morally right to end the life of a disabled person and the law could protect them.

There's certainly no right and wrong to this IMO.

If there was any law to come in, it should be one which dictates that such cases should be heard before a judge and that the judge has the legal authority to approve assisted suicide given the evidence supplied. So in this case, a man of sound mind wanting to end his life could be permitted, but someone who is not of sound mind or who's family find it too much of a burden to look after a disabled family member it would not be permitted as it is not within the persons ability to make their own choice.

Taking into account Fionntamhnach's observations as well, this is about the best solution I've seen proposed.

Orior - sophistry, I suggest.

winghalfun · August 17, 2012, 12:07:41 PM

Should assisted suicide ever be made law, it may well raise another interesting dilemma.

How will society judge those people who choose to end their lives in comparison to those who do not faced with similar circumstances.

Let's use Stephen Hawkings as an extreme example of how human spirit can overcome unimaginable adversity and then look at Mr. Nicklinson's case whereby he wants to die.

If we do get past the stage whereby assisted suicide is legally possible, will the person choosing to die be judged against those who do not.

No doubt we will get into an even deeper mire of who is the weaker and who is the stronger.

Eamonnca1 · August 17, 2012, 05:02:50 PM

Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.

I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.

deiseach · August 17, 2012, 05:08:08 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 17, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.

I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.

I got that. tbrick18 captures my position on the morality of it, hence the +1

Main Street · August 17, 2012, 07:45:38 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 17, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.

I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.

Well, we were asked by the OP "What do youse make of the decision today to refuse this guy the right to die?"
The court did not refuse him a right to die.
We can appreciate that the guy has a strong compelling case, a moral compassionate case, to decide to end his own life, but he can't, he's physically incapable of doing that. He went to the court to make a case for the judge to enable a 3rd party to end his life. The law does not allow for that.
And one cannot expect a loved one to administer the final heart-rending prescription. So the law does need to take account of this human condition. When a horse is seriously injured in a steeplechase we have witnessed (the vet?) administer the humane execution, it is hypocritical to refuse a human the same act of humanity. It is a compassionate act of mercy.

Main Street · August 17, 2012, 07:57:54 PM

And just as an addendum, in my experience with medics I have found all to be totally dedicated to prolonging a person's life and they are duty bound to use all means to do so, regardless of the patients age and health condition. I do not see much of an issue for a medically defined condition to be become an acceptable standard for an euthanasia intervention.
I'd see the equivalent of a coroner's court as more suitable to review each case on its merits.

firestarter · August 17, 2012, 10:02:13 PM

The law is currently wrong on this issue. The 'wedge argument' is the only thing preventing a change. Its not rocket science to put the appropriate safegaurds in place. I believe in the future people will look back in amazement that we forced our fellow humans to suffer in this way. As reguards this mans situation I cant believe that if he really wanted to die a family member wouldn't assist. I would do it in a flash for 1 of mine, the legal consequences would be an irrelevance to me.

ONeill · August 17, 2012, 10:20:43 PM

We'd think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.

Main Street · August 18, 2012, 09:30:17 AM

Quote from: ONeill on August 17, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
We'd think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.

Some would think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.

Quote from: firestarter on August 17, 2012, 10:02:13 PM
As reguards this mans situation I cant believe that if he really wanted to die a family member wouldn't assist. I would do it in a flash for 1 of mine, the legal consequences would be an irrelevance to me.

I think it's difficult to say what you would do yourself in such a situation and how you would handle the emotional consequences of such an act, regardless of the loved one's condition. The wife of this man does not want to do it.
This man doesn't want his life to end yet, he wanted the option of a having a medically induced termination should he so decide and wanted a legal decision that the medics would not be charged with murder.
However, a doctor can prescribe a 'great' dose of drugs to relieve 'great' pain, even if that act kills the patient.

firestarter · August 18, 2012, 11:15:44 AM

I think it's difficult to say what you would do yourself in such a situation and how you would handle the emotional consequences of such an act, regardless of the loved one's condition. The wife of this man does not want to do it.
This man doesn't want his life to end yet, he wanted the option of a having a medically induced termination should he so decide and wanted a legal decision that the medics would not be charged with murder.
However, a doctor can prescribe a 'great' dose of drugs to relieve 'great' pain, even if that act kills the patient.
[/quote]

I know what I would do in that situation. As regards the emotional consequences ,that is why the law needs to be changed so someone doesnt have to go through that, but for myself it wouldnt be a consideration. I heard his wife speaking yesterday and she said it has got to the point where he does in fact want to die.

omagh_gael · August 22, 2012, 11:52:58 AM

Tony Nicholson has passed away. No further details at the minute. I wonder was it natural causes or will there be more to it?