Samsung Galaxy S9 review
Professor Stephen Hawking talking to the BBC. It is high time assisted suicide, with suitable safeguards in place, was permitted in this country. Religous objections be damned, we are not all practising Christians any more in this country. Those who object on religious grounds can suffer if they want to when the time comes . Other people should have the option to end their suffering.
Let those that have Religious Beliefs be free to follow them.
No religion should be allowed to force its beliefs on others.
I don't think religious objections should be damned, but in general I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to dominate the debate. Surely the real stumbling block is the legal implications. We might all agree that I should be able to choose the manner and time of my death if I'm suffering from a terminal illness, or a condition that leads to a gradual loss of faculties, but what about the person who assists me - how do we make sure that it's possible to be sure, after the event, that it was all my idea?
Why should it be, that someone like Stephen Hawking needs to highlight this, so as to bring to the public's and possibly the 'establishments' attention?.
This sort of subject as been discussed many times before, and no doubt will be discussed many times in the future. Some families are torn apart by this, and possibly by a member of their own family's request or intentions.
When there is talk about 'Assisted Suicide', how do we actually define 'Assisted'. Was it the train driver, the water company, the car driver or even a medical person who perhaps attends a coroner's court, having to explain their actions in being a part of this?.
There is also another view point on the subject of 'Assisted', when some people are driven to take their own life by others, who were perhaps seeking vengeance due to possibly mis-guided actions. Only very recently in my location, the coroner could only bring in a verdict of suicide, and at the same time, make it very clear that the events leading up to that suicide could not be discussed, because of any possible legal implications, which apparently the police and the CPS had no jurisdiction, as the law stands at present, in this particular case?.
Perhaps some food for thought there?.
There will always be legal implications or otherwise. This in itself shouldn't really prevent the implementation of this concept. There will always be lawbreakers to every law of the land that is passed. This is the nature of things but to use legal implications to prevent this from going through as law is just nonsensical.
Arguing that human beings should be bracketed with dogs and cats when it comes to ending their lives is ridiculous.
Like many on the forum, I care for a disabled loved one.
She is mostly in pain, and has a pretty poor quality of life.
I don't think I could ever bring myself to help to end it though. Selfish perhaps but no.
spider9, Unfair comment from you. I've been there and faced that - I wouldn't and couldn't do it either. I don't have an answer, it's a complex issue.
spider9, I do not wish to discuss it further.
Well my condition can spread to all 4 limbs torso nrck scalp eyes mouth and internal organs. June has reluctantly agreed at what oint I can take my own life and I have the pikks ready but would I want her to assist, no way I lve her too much to put her through that. It will happen unannouced when she is out.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.