Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[eFestivals]

I'm afraid that that's far too general to be in any way related to this topic.

If you think that then that's a display of your stupidity.

Tony being hampered with his wish to die was PRECISELY because some people are of the belief that they have the right to determine his life or death, and not him - when all are of the same sound mind (as sound minded as you get with fascist beliefs, anyway ).

They believe they have this right over others - and succeed in operating it - because in the main the others hand them that right without challenge.

That 'right' will be overturned if challenged by enough people - and I simply do not believe that most people would choose to defer their right of choice to die to others if they found themselves in Tony's position; so the possibility of that challenge is certainly there.

It's very far from irrelevant. It is the heart of the matter.

But we are completely free to choose what we want to do.

Tony N got to prove that we are not - at least, not equally.

He was discriminated against on the basis that some think they can take away his right on the basis of claiming him to be somehow mentally ill, of not being fit to make the decision to die.

(the fact that it required someone else to help him is irrelevant,unless we're going to start saying that he also doesn't deserve help in any other part of his life too. We enable disabled people to be able to do everything which an abled person can ... except this.)

The only restraints are psychological through the coercive threat of law and punishment.

that's 100% bollocks, but also irrelevant.

To redress my point in light of what you've said, there are reinforcements to kill yourself in society. That to me is the thing that should be eliminated by the state, not the the restraints to stop yourself from doing so.

Do you get my point yet?

You have a point? Where?

The only point I'm seeing is one where you demand the right of control of others, on the spurious basis that you know their mind better than they do.

Which is, funnily enough, the very same thing which is going on to cause most of "reinforcements to kill yourself in society" - some people wanting (and getting) control they do not deserve or have rights to over others lives.

If the control is taken away from both sides of the scenario then you have an entirely different scenario, where everything works differently.

Edited September 5, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

If you think that then that's a display of your stupidity.

Tony being hampered with his wish to die was PRECISELY because some people are of the belief that they have the right to determine his life or death, and not him

[worm]

that's 100% bollocks, but also irrelevant.

[worm]

He was discriminated against on the basis that some think they can take away his right on the basis of claiming him to be somehow mentally ill, of not being fit to make the decision to die.

[eFestivals]

Incorrect. The state believed that it did not have the right to let other people kill him.

which conflicts with the right the state gives an abled person to kill themselves, and the state's stated intention that disabled people should be enabled to do all that abled can.

No matter what the legalities, it pans out as him being discriminated against because of his disability - because the state puts no such restriction on an abled person's ability to end their life.

Either a sane person has the right to end their life, or not. To deny that right because of a disability is discrimination of the disabled.

The legalities are the easy cop out by those who wish to keep control over others.

[eFestivals]

No it isn't bollocks or irrelevant.

You can take your life if you want to just as you can take someone elses life if you want to. The state has procedures in place if you do though.

the fact that it's bollocks is proven by the fact of your statement being utterly wrong.

The state has no procedures in place if you take your own life, outside of the standard procedures that exist for the end of anyone's life by any means.

[eFestivals]

He can make the decision, but others cannot carry it out.

What is wrong with you man? This is simple stuff and you're ignoring it. He cannot be stopped from making the decision. He can only be stopped from carrying it out because it involves other people killing him.

It only requires the help of others because of his disability.

He can't feed himself without the help of others either.

Spot the difference?

[worm]

which conflicts with the right the state gives an abled person to kill themselves, and the state's stated intention that disabled people should be enabled to do all that abled can.

[worm]

The state has no procedures in place if you take your own life

[worm]

It only requires the help of others because of his disability.

He can't feed himself without the help of others either.

Spot the difference?

[worm]

Laws on how to kill yourself. Could you imagine?

[eFestivals]

But the state does not permit murder Neil.

But this would not be murder in everything but perhaps the legal sense.

Get fixated on the word without thinking what's behind it if you like, but that will only lead you to the wrong place.

This is asking the state to have a political stance on suicide.

No it's not.

It's asking the state to grant disabled people the same ability (or same outcome, if you like) as abled people have by default - just as we do for all other things around the disabled.

If you concede that the state should be involved in making laws for suicide then you involve the world of psychiatry. Feral has already pointed this out.

Only because the world of psychiatry claims ownership of something which - in this instance at least - is fuck all to do with them.

If people grant them the power then they have a power to use, to control people for their own purposes, their own hold on power. If you give them that power then what follows is your scenario coming true. The outcome is a consequence of granting them that power, and so then we go around the self supporting circle of power and consequences of power yet again. ... take away that power from those who do not need it, just as they don't have it for the abled.

The point is that they have no right to that power over Tony's wishes, just as they have no right to that power over the same wish for an abled person.

Edited September 5, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Forfeit of pension.

a person's state pension is forfeited no matter how they die.

Any other pension has contractual terms not set by the state, thus no state involvement.

Fail.

Try again?

[eFestivals]

There is none. That's the point.

My point. Not yours.

FFS, where is your brain?

The state doesn't have any laws on people wanting or not wanting to feed themselves. It doesn't have any laws on people wanting to commit suicide either because it is up to the individual. But there are laws on how other people feed you. And they are vast and complex needing to pass health regulations and allsorts of expert stuff. It would be exactly the same for suicide Neil and it would involve your beloved psychiatry. And, of course, the state don't want to get involved in legitimising suicide.

there are no laws on how to feed a disabled person.

There is a expectation of compassion onto society that leads to the person being fed that cannot do it for themselves.

Fail yet again.

[eFestivals]

Laws on how to kill yourself. Could you imagine?

Laws on helping the disabled achieve what the abled can. Could you imagine?

Oh, you don't have to. They exist already. Fail again.

But they are incomplete. Because people like you believe that you have a right over the choices of the disabled that are not granted to the abled.

That is you thinking that disabled people are intellectually substandard, and require your intervention.

It's as offensive as it gets.

[worm]

It's asking the state to grant disabled people the same ability (or same outcome, if you like) as abled people have by default - just as we do for all other things around the disabled.

Edited September 5, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Laws on helping the disabled achieve what the abled can.

[worm]

a person's state pension is forfeited no matter how they die.

Any other pension has contractual terms not set by the state, thus no state involvement.

Fail.

Try again?

[worm]

But this would not be murder in everything but perhaps the legal sense.

Edited September 5, 2012 by worm

[worm]

It's this simple: If you grant a disabled person the right to commit suicide then you grant everyone the right to commit suicide, which means suicide centres, drugs to commit suicide, pamphlets on suicide, counsellors to give you the correct approaches to suicide, illegal suicides, back-street and black market suicide and so on and so forth.

Wake up Neil. There is no right to suicide given to us by the state. It is simply something we can do; it is a natural right.

Stop pretending that the issue is simply about the disabled when it isn't.

Edited September 5, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

No we don't. We grant them as much ability as we can in relation to the law. But there is no law saying that we can suicide. If there was then there'd be a massive process involved and it would be regulated, as I've already stated.

There is no legal stance on suicide. The state says nothing. Therefore, it will not see 'assistance' to suicide as anything other than murder. If it did allow assistance to suicide then it would have to create a whole process regarding suicide, as I've said over and over and over....

It only that if you class 'murder' as being causing anyone to die, no matter the circumstances. Given that UK law doesn't work it that way, you have no point.

UK law takes a considered view towards causing someone's death, as demonstrated by the different crime of manslaughter. Further than that, UK law chooses to not prosecute people who assist the suicide of an abled person, and doctors who decide not to prolong a life that they could prolong.

So there's already a system of differentiation in place - but a system that has DECIDED (unless mindless enough to be saying "murder is murder" as you are, out of step with the facts) that the disabled are to be treated as a special case, where the abled get to pronounce on the rights of disabled people.

Edited September 5, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The legal sense is the only sense being discussed here Neil. Fucking hell man!

PMSL - so you're saying "it's the law, so we can't change the law"?

You and Jack Straw, eh? Thick as shit when it comes to law.

[worm]

Further than that, UK law chooses to not prosecute people who assist the suicide of an abled person, and doctors who decide not to prolong a life that they could prolong.

[worm]

PMSL - so you're saying "it's the law, so we can't change the law"?

Edited September 5, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

We need a reference here I reckon.

No, only YOU need a reference, because you're clearly pontificating on a subject you know little about.

Come back when you've done some research so you actually know what you're talking about.