Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[eFestivals]

What is wrong with you? Are you capable of discussion?

You really are laughjable. You saying for me to address your points, and I do. You then come back and demand that I address your points.

It ain't me that has a problem with discussion, nor the problem with listening you're having.

[worm]

I've addressed it continually.

It's "could", not "would".

And that "could" is dependent on how exactly any new law is written and implemented. So the law won't be written or implemented any way that you're currently thinking.

The issue now becomes one of whether you are able to throw off your prejudices and *think*, rather5 than doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening".

How was Tony's case conducted? Did it raise any of the worries you keep repeating? No. So the proof is there that your worries are not the reality.

Here's yet another case where your prejudices have got the better of you. Try referencing the facts in reality, and not what end up being empty words written down on paper.

[worm]

You really are laughjable. You saying for me to address your points, and I do. You then come back and demand that I address your points.

It ain't me that has a problem with discussion, nor the problem with listening you're having.

[eFestivals]

Neil, that's avoiding it; talking it away. It's not addressing it.

Ditto, matey.

You keep saying that some particular things could happen.

I keep pointing out that none of those things were any issue in Tony's case, and so they need not be any issue in any other.

You can't argue with the facts. Well, you can and do .... but that doesn't make you right, as the facts get to prove.

[eFestivals]

Look man. What law would you write. Just answer the question instead of trying to talk it away.

If you'd been reading what I've written and not merely listening to your prejudices you'd already know.

I've said it already in this thread. Go look.

What system would you implement. What would you do about all of the side-issues that have happened and are evident in other nations that have implemented such laws.

The side issues you've raised from other countries are not actually side issues. They're simply the way that those countries have chosen to implement a law of voluntary euthanasia.

As I've already said, there's more than one way to write and implement a law. It does not need a formal state structure for all possibilities of anything as you've said it does, it merely needs a method of state oversight.

Tony's case, as it happened in reality, had that state oversight. The only thing it was lacking was the right judgement for Tony.

Something else that is missing from your considerations is voluntary euthanasia already happens in this country, both within and outside the sight of state structures. The possibility of any abuse is already present, but it's not kicking up any of the issues you are trying to claim as there by default.

[worm]

I keep pointing out that none of those things were any issue in Tony's case

[eFestivals]

Which is bullshit.

which isn't.

His case, had it been succesful, would have been one in which a precedence for euthanasia was set.

Nope, a precedent for assisted suicide.

You twisting the words do not twist the real facts.

And another fact: there are already many existing precedents set in UK law and UK legal practice for assisted suicide.

Tony's case, had it been successful, would have simply been a logical extension of what already exists, without adding any extra issues into the mix. The sole difference in his case to those existing precedents was his physical inability to push the button - do just the final part of an assisted suicide - for himself.

Ultimately, that assistance is no more or less of a cause of his death than another assisted suicide where assistance is given to get on a plane to Switzerland.

That means that there would have to be a shed load of laws and regulations otherwise all of the things I listed would become a reality.

The worries you list already ARE a reality (tho just in some cases. Not all, and that difference is important).

Assisted suicide - to the needs of Tony - already happens in this country off the radar, and there's naff all any regulations or state intervention can do to stop them.

But when a case puts itself above the parapet as Tony has done, then it's clearly going to be the case - as was shown in reality with Tony - that there's none of those issues taking place. He's not been brought before the court by force of pressure from relatives; he's not of unsound mind; he has simply made the same decision as others do, but he is not able to carry it out as others do.

He needs someone to carry it out. Doctors are - whether they admit or not - causing the deaths of people like Tony all the time by the deliberate decisions they take which they know will cause their patient to die - be that by stopping treatment or by administering drugs.

So where do your issues show up in these real cases? They don't. They don't exist. And so those issues are issues only in your head and not in the real world.

You won't indulge this. Fair enough. Your contribution has ended. You've given your opinion and we can see its extent. See ya.

I've addressed all of this countless times. You never give a meaningful response, you simply repeat the same old prejudiced bollocks that the facts DO NOT support.

Running away because you can't separate the real facts from your prejudices and address what I've said - the facts - shows your flawed and prejudiced stance to this.

[worm]

Tony's case, had it been successful, would have simply been a logical extension of what already exists, without adding any extra issues into the mix. The sole difference in his case to those existing precedents was his physical inability to push the button - do just the final part of an assisted suicide - for himself.

[eFestivals]

I repeat: 'You've given your opinion and we can see its extent.'

says the man who's given no more or less of an opinion, but who refuses to go into any detail to flesh out what he's said, and who refuses to address the actual facts above his prejudices.

You say there's a bunch of issues - and yet they were nowhere to be seen in Tony's case.

Why is that fact unable to penetrate the sawdust in your head?