Assisted Dying, isn't it time Atheists get this right?

Hi BFG,

Thanks for posting here. Its good to read that your treatment is going well. 

While you wait to hear other members thoughts on the topic, I thought Id share this link by BMA regarding the current law and a legislative proposal for the UK that you may be interested to read. The British Medical Association (BMA) is the trade union and professional body for doctors in the UK.

This is a very complex topic but one that should be able to be spoken about in safe and trusted spaces. I hope you are able to have a helpful and constructive conversation.

Hi Dylan, 

Many thanks for your post and for the link, very interesting.

Take care.

It definitely is a complex topic and having just been successfully treated for cancer it is a subject that I have thought about.

I keep an eye on and receive a e-newsletter from Dignity in Dying . They have a website with plenty of information 

THere are a number of alleged issues around assisted dying. These arguments tend to be put forward by small interest groups and some religious groups. The arguments are typically well crafted and take account particularly of legal-cum-moral issues rather than ethical issues. In moral terms they tend to be absolutist rather than relative. Many 'western' societies prefer an absolutist moral position and find it hard to accept/understand/appreciate a moral relitavist position. Thus the arguments start with 'this is absolutely right/wrong' and then justify the argument rather than considering the issues, considerations, concerns, etc. and discussing them in a balanced and sensible way. The problem with moral relativism is that you could find, indeed are likely to find, that you have to consider a much broader range and depth of argument and you may need to change your point of view and your understanding. People as a rule don't like doing this. Add to this the emotive content of assisted dying and the rise and rise of the grostesque motif 'saving lives'. (I traced the modern origin of this motif to the lat 1800s and identified the primary institution operationalising this motif. It is extraordinarily anthropocentric for all the wrong reasons and lacking in substance. It is a powerful instrument in the use of power.)

I have been an Atheist all my adult life. I don't know what is the right way to explain this. To me, inflicting prolonged life on somebody who doesn't want to live has parallels with inflicting death upon someone who does want to live. 

I have to say that I still curse Harold Shipman. Without that murderer, we might have an equitable agreement by now. Nonetheless, as we work and campaign for better laws, it is absolutely critical that we listen carefully to the objections of those that have the opposite or different views. They do have a point that gold standard palliative care for all would be a massive benefit. 

Makes sense to me. My parents are ultra religious and have watched their parents a siblings go through horrific pain and suffering and sitting by their bedside hoping for death to end suffering. As a cancer sufferer myself, my son,my best friend asked me "Dad. Do you want to live". Truthfully I replied "Yes". I want to live,not merely exist. We would not allow our much loved pets to suffer. Sorry for rant. Funnily this forum lifts my spirits...especially about availability of Wi-Fi  after death.

My views are controversial.  I believe anybody with a terminal illness, at any stage of the disease,  should be able to opt for peaceful painless injection to put them to sleep, and die.  Their choice, nobody else gets any say, period.  I also believe that those who are not dying but reached a level of low quality of life which THEY find intolerable,  should be able to make the same choice. This could be done simply by providing a portable machine which the person has to initiate the process themselves simply by pushing a button.  Alternatively,  if that person has previously stated what their wishes are if they reach the point where they can't even do that,  then a person they have nominated and has agreed to do that for them can do it.  It should be coerce someone into making this choice though,  it should have to be something they request of their own free will. 

I consider that my mother-in-law and friend’s husband received assisted dying in a rather brutal way in hospital, by the Liverpool Pathway method of withholding food and water in their last days.  It was supposed to ensure comfort and dignity but my mother-in-law spent her last 3 days alternately begging for water and to die.  It was officially abandoned in 2014 but my friend’s husband died only a fortnight ago and it was still used for him.  The family weren’t allowed to interfere in both cases, apart from being permitted to moisten the patient’s lips which didn’t help. 

I believe one of the arguments against euthanasia was that the patient might still recover.  Not in the case of my mother-in-law, who was riddled with cancer and still in pain despite painkillers.  Comfort - what comfort?  I feel there’s a lot of hypocrisy on this subject.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bfg. It's a deeply personal and important topic. Many agree that assisted dying is about reducing suffering, not ending life early. Hopefully, future laws will reflect compassion and choice for those who need it. Wishing you strength and continued recovery.