Intelligence Squared Debate: Euthanasia Should be Legalised
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- Death is the most personal of matters, but it’s also a political hot potato.
Most of us don’t choose (or even expect) the way in which we die, but for the terminally ill, death is a looming certainty to be dealt with. And as humans live longer - largely thanks to the interventions of modern medicine - we’re more likely to die of serious illness, and to have our deaths medically postponed.
There has long been a call for governments to grant us the right to choose our own death, by legalising euthanasia. But what are the circumstances in which this right should be granted? Who gets to decide - and when? And then there’s the sobering knowledge that this is one life decision that can’t be reversed.
From medicos to philosophers, politicians to law enforcers, the terminally ill to their loved ones, this one issue we all have an opinion on - and a possible stake in.
Speakers for the motion include Beth Wilson, the outgoing Victorian Health Services Commissioner, Professor Loane Skene, an ethicist at the University of Melbourne, and Dr Philip Nitschke, the founding director of pro-euthanasia group Exit International.
Speakers against the motion include Dr Shakira Hussein, from the Asia Institute at University of Melbourne, Scott Stephens, religion and ethics editor for ABC Online, and Associate Professor Bill Silvester, Director Respecting Patient Choices Program at the Austin Hospital, and Intensive Care Specialist.
I was shoched to find out, that the list of human rights doesn't include the right to dignified death. How come?
I'm in so much pain. My doctor says don't bother to come over. We can't do anything about your pain.
In all the debates I have encountered on this topic I have seen a single trend. The euthanasia affirmative side always presents rational and logical arguments supported by clear facts and the opposition argues on the basis of their emotions
PREFER US TO WALK IN FRONT OF A TRUCK OR TRAIN ---- AND RUIN THEIR LIVES AS WELL EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT --- BUT THE MEMORY WILL LAST A LIFETIME FOR THEM.
The individual should be able to make the choice if they have the time, education and capacity. Yes sometimes it's more complicated than that takes compassionate non religious professionals.
38:44 Our lives are our own. There is no reason for them to belong to those who love us when they have their own lives and can in fact choose to withdraw the said love. Even to the most neutral of rational people, those who may view the right to die as being extreme, it is clear that without religious tyranny, your point makes no sense.
A rather cynical thought....Big pharmaceuticals would surely lose out if euthanasia's made widely available instead of palliative care. (Of course no-one would ever dare admit to this being an influence).
I don't think its an either-or choice... palliative care would still be widely accepted but there comes a point where it just isn't enough and euthanasia is an option then
YOU CANT BE CHARGED WITH ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVE LEFT.🙏✝️ 🇬🇧
Good speakers indeed
Is it really pain free death? Is if affordable. Switzerland does it for tourists according to the Internet but it is very expesive
pigs don't have a choice, dogs don't have a choice, etc
Am I getting genuine information for my ethical dilemma essay?
Yes, I thank all contributors, u've made my academic research.
Social Determinants of Health, Social justice, outdated laws?
Legalise the law and that will be end of democracy in autocratic states.
God bless
that red coat women is so weird
she has MS chill out LEE
Care, compassion, and COMPANIONSHIP (dying alone is often given as the number one fear) constitute the answer - not death imposed by oneself or anyone else.
Hey, Christina! Why is Al Qaeda more compassionate than you?
The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly!
what if the person is lonely or antisocial
Liberal individualists voted against the death penalty because they recognized that the risk of the law being exploited was too great for the small benefits it would have. Yet, these same thinkers don't give two hoots about corrupt doctors who would make bank off your dying family, the greedy child who'd like to expedite their inheritance or the dictator who uses euthanasia to wipe out all their political enemies. The debate is not about autonomy, you are free to off yourself at any time. It is about safety for those most vulnerable. Those same elderly who could be preyed upon in their darkest hours. The opposition do not lack compassion but the proposition certainly lacks imagination.