If someone intends to kill themselves they consider their life has no more value so society does not have responsibility to agree with that, like I said earlier it is not autonym to end your existence which would lead to a state of nonexistence and hence no autonomy.

It is absurd to protest against the state keeping you alive.

Political suicide is an expression of ones values is unethical in my opinion. And bringing in laws that endanger other people to me is unethical.

And it clearly is not about extreme cases of suffering but the push is for anyone to be able to end their life at any stage which I see no reason for society to grant which would lead to anarchy. Society needs to value life not be involved in hastening its demise.

Almost everything in human history attests to a species not valuing human life. — Vera Mont

People fought against the Nazis to end the Holocaust. The transatlantic slavery was ended. Apartheid ended. Women got equal rights and so on. We continue fighting not euthanising people because we no longer value life because we have given up on our species.

Nothing about the value, profundity and continuation of human life.
— Andrew4Handel

What about them? — Vera Mont

The reason we shouldn't kill people.

I'm beginning to think the pro suicide people lack values and morals.
The only thing I am getting is the eagerness to allow someone to die. Nothing about the value, profundity and continuation of human life.

I think killing someone or allowing them to die is at odds with valuing human life and we are not just animals to be put down in a mercy killing or put out of our misery.

In a lot of debates I am getting a sense of a lack of profound values, a creeping meaninglessness. And I sense it is influenced by atheism/secularism and the refusal to comprehend any kind of supernatural spiritual element to life.

If you have nihilist, spiritless values I think people are entitled to impose value on you because by rejecting value you have no argument they should value your opinions.

I have found some bible quotes.

Take into consideration the bible is contradictory and long and can be used to support many different positions.

"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 4:1

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death
Exodus 21:16

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
Exodus 21:26-27

I hope the government shifts to policies more in line with my convictions. — Vera Mont

That's the problem isn't it. Someone has to lose and we want society to run on our own terms. But I don't see why you would trust the government to a manage an assisted suicide considering their track record of eugenics and the current problems with it.

There certainly is the issue as how far can we trust the government and how much power can we invest them with. It may be that we just are stuck with our government doing a mixture of terrible and good things.

The solution maybe apathy and self preservation otherwise it maybe a long battle for ones values.

That's irrelevant. Anyway, search wiki & google. — 180 Proof

Maybe you can find a few, to defend the idea that religion is the problem. The evidence is that religious people can be humane and find solutions and campaign for rights and being secular atheist or even highly intelligent is no guarantee of reason or compassion.

If there were a raft of non theists/atheists/ the irreligious campaigning against slavery and racism that would be a great advertisement for them. Now it seems people just take credit for things they assume are a result of irreligiosity.

Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister.

Why would anyone's job-description be their personal identity? — Vera Mont

I am surprised you asked this.

A lot of peoples jobs are part of their identities and a valued part of their life. Finding out someone is a nurse could make you think they were a caring humane person and is part of their life history.

That is why some people convey a fake identity because it is an identity they wanted or it is an identity that is useful to them at some time. Such as evading capture or identity through elaborate disguise

This is an example of how there are (at least) two identities at play in any social interaction. The self-concept of an individual (how he sees himself), and the other-concept of the person interacting with him. — tomatohorse

The question probably is to what extent should one influence the other.

I think it is probably impossible to force someone to think something abut you. Such that we have limited control over other peoples minds without deception and coercion.

So the problem for me is any attempt to enforce someone else's opinion on someone else's identity.

Some identities seem to be for public consumption indeed. Some people make more effort to convey an identity to the public than others but this can lead to greater public rejection.

Now imagine someone walks by, looks at your artwork, and says, "This isn't great art. Why, my 5 year-old can draw better than this. And for the record, [some other artist] is the best artist in the world."

Is this person entitled to their opinion? Of course. Should they be allowed to express that opinion? Yes. Equally as much as you can express yours. — tomatohorse

This is the problem. You might not want to hurt someone by contradicting them but you also might not want to lie. It becomes a problem when you are forced to call someone the worlds greatest painter.

Maybe we have a moral obligation to affirm other peoples identities to spare them suffering but it becomes a farce if you are only falsely confirming their identity whilst holding the opposite view.

You’re Agender but don’t identify as Agender? :chin: — praxis

I would be labelled agender by someone else. It is a bit like atheism relying on theism.

I can't make sense of the non grammatical form of gender.

I think there is a difference between desiring to be X and the ability to be X. If I desired to appear more of a typical man I probably couldn't and that would probably mean trying to project a (gender?) image through aping someone else.

The intent to deceive? — praxis

There is the intent to deceive and then the intent to project an image that one prefers for ones self. A civilian dressing as police officer could be an intent to deceive.

But wearing make up, certain clothing, or things to project an identity could be an attempt to project or enhance one's self identity.

Someone might be deceiving one's self however in self presentation. We can deceive ourselves and hence portray a false image of ourselves not reflecting some facts about us.

If a man looks like a man but behaves exactly like a woman then we tend to think of them as a man in appearance and a woman in gender. — praxis

I personally don't and I don't know who you are referring to exactly. If I mistake someone for the opposite sex it is usually based on physical appearance and usually women with short hair and a less curvy figures.

I don't have a gender identity and apparently that is being called "Agender." I am a tall bald gay male who is not very flamboyant but may give off signals.

My interests include baroque music and this/philosophy/learning but I don't like sports or cars and typical male interests but I also don't like fashion/make up and soap operas. If I did I wouldn't consider that my gender identity. I preferred the company of girls when I was a young boy. Now I prefer my own company.

I also couldn't do a high maintenance identity trying to convince people I was x. But a lot of people seem to find it harder to be themselves than try and conform.

I do not really understand your argument Andrew. You are an antinatalist, so you must feel the chances of spending life suffering is bigger than the chance of becoming happy. Why then, would you withhold the medicine to end the suffering for someone so unlucky as to have been born, just because others are needed to administer it? Your position simply seems cruel by your own lights. — Tobias

I am not withholding medicine from anyone I am opposing the legalizing of physician and government assisted suicide because of a wide range of concerns that I have outlined already. I am not advocating prosecuting anyone for assisting a suicide either except on a case by case basis which already occurs in countries with assisted suicide when the suicide is suspect.

However Antinatalists often face the objection that if you don't like life you can just kill yourself.

I personally think that once you have created a life you have created a responsibility to make that life flourish. It is an easy way out for parents to say "well you can commit suicide?" and have the state facilitate it. It is something that people have said to me and health professions and other professionals can offer suicide over assistance as has happened.

Most antinatalist are strong supporters of assisted suicide so I am in a minority. I think the only way to avoid suffering is not to create more people, once you have created them suffering is inevitable and assisted suicide often happens because of suffering.

So it is arguable how much suffering assisted suicide prevents and some older people kill themselves when healthy to avoid imagined future suffering yet a lot of old people I knew died peacefully in their sleep without major disabilities.

Yes but Slavery abolitionists were also religious and could use the bible to condemn it. How many slavery abolitionist were irreligious?

David Hume was irreligious but:

"David Hume advised his patron, Lord Hertford to buy a slave plantation, facilitated the deal and lent £400 to one of the principal investors. And when criticised for racism in 1770, he was unmoved, writes Dr Felix Waldmann"

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/david-hume-was-brilliant-philosopher-also-racist-involved-slavery-dr-felix-waldmann-2915908

You’re only taking one side of the social agreements into account. People identify others in particular ways and not always fairly. In fact it is often done deliberately in order to subjugate or take advantage of others. — praxis

That is a good point but I was talking about personal identities as opposed to imposed identities, social identities and stereotypes.

While there is a clear problem with imposing false identities on others it is somewhat inevitable arguably.

If we were discussing stereotypes and imposed identities I would say that other peoples evaluations would only be relevant to us if they have a professional capacity ( and even then with caution) Like an exam moderator/scorer, a doctor diagnosing something etc but we can't stop people drawing opinions about us.
It happend to me a lot (Judgements made on me) and now I think we have to develop confidence in our own identity (unless someone is being clearly oppressed) and not be swayed easily by other peoples assessments of us.
I think we now have a situation where people are encouraged not to question peoples identities and affirm them without criticism.

No, it is knowingly, deliberately and demonstrably false. — Vera Mont

Which could be said for a range of identites.

Many people have many delusions and self-delusions. They are not considered crimes or misdemeanours, and only sometimes considered mental illness. — Vera Mont

What are the ramifications of this? In your opinion. If you care to comment?

I used the Police officer example to suggest how personal identities can be problematic and that we might want to (pardon the pun) Police them.

So-called civilized governments sentence innocent people to death every day, and send healthy, fit young ones out into battlefields to kill and be killed for no logical reason, and let people starve and freeze to death on streets, and pine away in refugee camps and prisons. — Vera Mont

But you trust the same governments and society to enact an ethical assisted suicide scheme?

However, none of these risks are comparable to the known, palpable, inevitable suffering of someone who has bone cancer, begs for the means of escape and being surrounded by jurists who tell him "No, because if we let you die, then some other people whom we don't consider eligible might also choose to die. You don't own your life; we do." — Vera Mont

There is a You tube video about a young man or teenage boy who died of bone cancer by committing suicide with his family around him. It says he refused palliative care. His family were investigated but not charged with anything.

Your positions is unrealistic because it is not just people with chronic illness and massive pain who seek assisted suicide the principle is that anyone should be able to choose when to die at any stage outside childhood.

My older brother had primary progressive MS that paralysed him and he repeatedly asked to be kept alive after pressure sores , several bouts of pneumonia, a tracheotomy, the inability to speak and being peg fed.
A lot of people in this condition including with Locked in syndrome do not want to die. And according to Canadian statistics I can link to most do not choose assisted suicide.

However why does the government have a duty to assist you killing yourself? Doctors do not have to prolong your life indefinitely and do give overdose levels of morphine among other things but giving someone a lethal injection or placing a poisonous pill on the tongue is the government killing you.

Suicide is not illegal in a lot of countries and there are few prosecutions for assisted suicide and few convictions and these can happen in extreme cases like the case you mentioned where someone slit his wife's throat. I asked my brother whether he might want an assisted suicide early on in his care and said to him that I couldn't personally help him. I would have not being involved in my brothers care if I thought I might be tempted to harm him.

Anyway, how far can you trust a loving, merciful god who would condemn you to eternal suffering for refusing to prolong the undeserved suffering he'd meted out to you? — Vera Mont

I don't agree with this but I was always told that humans were innately sinful and deserved to suffer. (Yes it was an unpleasant upbringing) I find that a macabre and indefensible position now. There is the theology of total depravity that has been influential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
Yes it all is cruel but then even without religion, life, nature and people is cruel. Even without gods you can feel persecuted by fate and nature.

But my issue is that we don't know what happens after someone dies. For example if I knew I was going to go to heaven in some kind of idyllic setting that would give me motivation to struggle on and hope.
Should people have hope or should they not? And who is to decide?

I'm highlighting the strength of peoples beliefs about the afterlife (as well as all issues related to assisted suicide.)
I personally don't religion should have any role in the running of a country.

That said religion can have a positive role in opposing negative government based on issues of conscience including criticising how the poor are treated. Religious people opposed slavery and so on.

So I would not say religious input was irrelevant even if it personally is to you. Can one persons morals and ideologies triumph? In the end one position is instituted as law after a competition of ideals.

Some people believe in an afterlife some don't.
I don't see how this is relevant to deliberating on the issue (except maybe to the one in need of assisted suicide). — 180 Proof

I assume this doesn't apply to you but I was brought up in a hell and damnation church and household that believed the majority of people were going to spend eternity in hell and possibly a lake of fire as claimed in a few biblical texts and the Quran.

I don't think we can know that we are putting someone out of their suffering if we don't know what happens to consciousness after the death of our body.

It is a faith position either way.

I think if everyone knew what happened after death then dying would be easier. Some irreligious/atheists are so confident there is no afterlife they are not as frightened of death as other people. Some religious people are so confident about the afterlife they have a sense of reassurance. But who can prove one way or the other.

If you don't assist someone's suicide but give them good palliative care you avoid the ethical dimension of ending a life.

I also think untestable beliefs about after death can influence peoples values and actions but could be entirely false. As an antinatalist my solution is not to put another life in this Situation-Dilemma.
But this may be a case of strongly differing values.

I strongly believe it's immoral to force thousands of people to suffer for one's own inability to predict every possible consequence of every legislation. — Vera Mont

You reject the efficacy of palliative care. Having a child is forcing someone to suffer. I have been forced to suffer in many ways since birth. If your belief that it is immoral is not objective then what is it other than a statement of personal preference?

The consequences of the legislation have already being manifested in the cases I raised and the history of eugenics and the Nazis etc and judging some life not to be worth living.

This is a case where the direst consequences already happened and are not speculative.

I am an agnostic in general about facts and I believe pragmatism or agnosticism is a kind of solution where you err on the side of caution and in the case of assisted suicide if you allow only it in very clearly delineated cases for individuals and not opening the door to a lax permissive attitude to ending life.

or the legitimacy of trans people merely existing), or some such, then no, that's not a debatable topic for this forum as far as I'm concerned. — busycuttingcrap

This something I mentioned on the now deleted thread.
There are gay men who's testimonies I can provide who identified as women and had their penises turned into pseudo vaginas. (Ask if you want links and testimonies.) They now regret this and have no sexual function and have talked about internalised homophobia among other things.

A lot of is at stake in this issue including women's identities and safety and gay identities. Same sex attraction (as opposed to genital preference) and it is all a hot political topic.

It doesn't matter whether or not we discuss it here but I think the idea of a phobia like Islamophobia distorts what is a hate motivation and what is a legitimate criticism.

Unfortunately Gender identities are able to be critiqued and rejected like religious beliefs and other claims but it is going to obviously offend the people who hold those identities.

I think it has been a mistake ever to validate certain gender concepts so that now lots of people hold bizarre beliefs and identities that they have been led to believe are valid and their is going to be a protest from those who reject these identities as invalid or harmful.

There is increasing evidence that gender ideology is harmful and especially the surgeries are un ethical.
And I believe legalising people gender beliefs and making people kowtow to them is Orwellian and making people hold false beliefs that they find crazy. As someone who grew up in a religious cult I feel in a similar situation of being made to believe someone else's ideas under pain of punishment.

May be you can use this thread to reframe the thread you want to start?

I think think there is a moral dilemma here. A person could vote for or not protest an assisted suicide bill that has negative consequences or is simply objectively immoral.

We are always in danger of supporting ideologies and programs that we don't know the full ramifications of.

This is why i am currently a mild moral nihilist. I don't think we can know whether are values are valid without some kind of arbiter like moral facts that doesn't depend on humans.

Then you agree that transgender people should have equal rights. :up: — praxis

What does that mean?

I don't have the right to somebody else's identity. Men don't have the right to women's rights and protections.

Everyone in the west is theoretically covered by basic human rights legislation.

There is no reason for people to accept gender ideology and identities in the same way we shouldn't be forced to believe in a religion like Islam Or Christianity.
Gender ideology makes questionable claims that can be challenged and if you can't question it through allegations of transphobia then it becomes an unchallenged irrational dogma.

What do you think an acceptable way to discuss transgender identities would be?

I did a thread on a similar topic if it is of any interest.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11229/changing-sex/p1

I'm delighted to hear that. It's none of my business, but I do wonder why. — Andrew4Handel

I suppose it is to do with allowing people to be released from severe suffering. But after palliative care has been explored preferably.

I think my concern is devaluing life. It is easy to get to the position where you say "we are all going to die anyway so why bother." I think to value life we need to preserve and improve it. I think even with severe illness friends and relatives can value every extra day they get to spend with a sick person. I don't think being seriously ill should rob people of life of value.

I think some people who advocate for AS are advocating for it on ideological grounds and have a different life philosophy and theological stance etc . I think assisted suicide should be argued about on pragmatic or rational grounds but not based ones own personal beliefs. People have a wide range of different beliefs and values vying for a position

Some people believe in an afterlife some don't.

My position on this has softened today.

I could accept assisted dying in very specific cases where someone is terminally ill or who has a chronic incurable illness that is not a mental illness.

I still think it could lead to a slippery slope easily.

This article about the Graham Mansfield case contains interesting information about the situation with Assisted suicide in Oregon.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/campaign-groups-case-graham-mansfield-24561894

"In the US State of Oregon, which has assisted suicide, six in 10 (59 per cent) of those ending their lives in 2019 cited the fear of being a burden on their families, friends and caregivers as a reason for seeking death and a further 7.4 per cent cited financial worries. There are other problems too.

"Legalising Physician Assisted Suicide also seems to normalise suicide in the general populations. Indeed, academics who looked at this emerging trend concluded that legalising assisted suicide was associated with an increase of 6.3 per cent in the numbers of suicides in Oregon, once all other factors had been controlled. Among over 65s the figure was more than double that.

"At the same time testimony from Professor Joel Zivot, casts doubt on the myth being put forward by those who want a change in the law that patients opting for the lethal cocktail of drugs die a quick and painless death. Evidence from Tennessee, which uses the same drugs to kill people on death row as the ones used in Oregon, suggest the inmates die from drowning in their own secretions or what doctors call a pulmonary oedema. The Professor goes on to explain why in US executions, even though the person is sedated first, before the lethal cocktail of drugs is administered, the authorities have to strap down both the person's hands and even their fingers to stop them moving.

"Buts it's not just in Oregon on the continent that we see problems. In Canada, last year 1,400 people who were euthanised cited loneliness as a reason. At the same time limits on who could be killed, the so-called safeguards have been eroded or scrapped and the Government has talked about the millions of dollars introducing euthanasia has saved regional health budgets"

For more than a decade, Dr. Daniel and Katherine Gute of Milwaukee, both approaching 80, had been planning their deaths, should one or both of them be forced to live in a nursing home or need extraordinary medical care. — Vera Mont

There is a lot about this case here:

https://www.milwaukeemag.com/tender-is-the-night/

"In 2002, they were visited by Anne Wanzer, one of Kitty’s college classmates, and her husband, Dr. Sidney Wanzer."

"Wanzer published a booklet through Hemlock Society USA called The End of Life: How to Deal with the System – A Practical Guide for Patients and Families. In it, he outlines how to make a living will and do-not-resuscitate orders, and details methods of “hastening” the end of life: physician-assisted suicide, stopping aggressive medical treatments, not eating and using helium."

So this is apparently not a case of suicide through desperation.
.........

“If Dan had a bible, it was Wanzer’s book,” says Dr. Bruce Wilson, the Gutes’ doctor and friend. Wilson says he had “hundreds” of conversations with Dan and Kitty about end-of-life issues. “Both of them said to me, ‘We feel very strongly about how we want to go out, when it’s time.’ ”

Daniel intended to kill himself because he didn't want to live without his wife not because he assisted in her suicide. Her having dementia has the ethical dilemma of her not being able to consent.

This is different then the cases faced by people with poverty, poor healthcare access, mental illness, family pressure and other issues people are faced with when AS becomes nationally legalised.

There is a lot more relevant information in the linked article that I will come back to in later posts.

Here is some issues with the Canadian assisted suicide program. From The Guardian Newspaper.

"Are Canadians being driven to assisted suicide by poverty or healthcare crisis?"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws

"After pleading unsuccessfully for affordable housing to help ease her chronic health condition, a Canadian woman ended her life in February under the country’s assisted-suicide laws. Another woman, suffering from the same condition and also living on disability payments, has nearly reached final approval to end her life."

"In February, a 51-year-old Ontario woman known as Sophia was granted physician-assisted death after her chronic condition became intolerable and her meagre disability stipend left her little to survive on, according to CTV News.

“The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass,” she said in a video obtained by the network. For two years, she and friends had pleaded without success for better living conditions, she said."

How does that relate to torturing people too feeble to defend themselves? — Vera Mont

What are you referring to? Palliative care is not torture. Prolonging someone's life is not the definition of torture.

Your position seems to contain a lot of hyperbole. Once enacted assisted suicide laws affect everybody. They affect attitudes towards life and death, palliative care, treatment and value of the disabled the treatment of mental illness.

You cited the example of Arthur Koestler and his wife. I will deal with the different cases you gave separately.

Arthur Koestler took his own life without assistance. His healthy wife committed suicide in her fifties as part of a suicide pact. Suicide pacts are ethically problematic and indicate an unhealthy relationship. Peoples life should not end when a loved one dies. It is reminiscent of Suttee where a wife was immolated or immolated herself on the funeral pyre of her husband in India. It is a recipe for abuse and coercion

"Controversy arose over why Koestler allowed, consented to, or (according to some critics) compelled his wife's simultaneous suicide. She was only 55 years old and was believed to be in good health. In a typewritten addition to her husband's suicide note, Cynthia wrote that she could not live without her husband. Reportedly, few of the Koestlers' friends were surprised by this admission, apparently perceiving that Cynthia lived her life through her husband and that she had no "life of her own".[75] Her absolute devotion to Koestler can be seen clearly in her partially completed memoirs.[76] Yet according to a profile of Koestler by Peter Kurth:[77]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler#Final_years,_1976%E2%80%931983

Koestler was a long time advocate of assisted suicide and was Vice-President of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. It is not clear like in other cases of suicide advocates that he tried palliative care.
His suicide and others like this that have happened can be viewed as political acts.

...until we attain the age of majority, whereupon we choose our studies, work, friends, lovers, homes, lifestyles, purchases, government representatives, churches, hobbies, entertainments, clothing, modes of transport, even down to the herbs in our kitchen window. — Vera Mont

The would be great if it was true but it probably isn't. Peoples childhood probably profoundly effects their adulthood (that is another debate topic) and peoples attitudes correlate with their the society they grew up in and your picture is of a Western capitalist, individualistic model. Culturally situated so to speak.

In some societies married couples live with their parents or a parent moves in with a married couple. Society is less individualistic and has stronger notions of duty. Independence from others is not viewed as a good thing. Some types of dependence are seen as positive.

In the case of Nathan Verhlest in the opening post she was neglected by her parents leading to a need for complete emotional self sufficiency
but she/he tried to transition to male to win her parents approval which didn't work unethical surgeons experimented on her body to try and make her look as male as possible because surgeons can now apparently do anything to your body that you ask for
and then society provides the poison for her to exist life after a litany of abuse neglect and medical malpractice.

Also conversely, a lingering illness can - does - create burdens of entrapment, helpless pity, self-sacrifice, guilt, resentment and material hardship for the family. The terminally ill parent was going to die anyway, only the children didn't first go through a long period of waiting, watching them suffer. And the spouse who can't stand that any longer and helps the patient die, often commits suicide, too, rather than go to prison. — Vera Mont

I would need examples of this "And the spouse who can't stand that any longer and helps the patient die, often commits suicide, too," can you cite one case or more. I would wager that there are far more cases of one suicide triggering another.
Suicide contagion is well documented in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide

You seem to be working under the false premise that assisted suicide is only being used on terminally ill persons or will stop their.
I was talking about how suicide in general affects others and that it is not just purely autonomous act because it has consequences for others.
Even in cases of seriously ill people having an assisted death relatives often don't want it to happen. (And most terminally ill people don't use assisted suicide in places like Canada)

I felt trapped in my brothers care when I started to care for him. My own mental health had improved so i started to get involved in with his care and moved in with him. Over the years I moved out and he got married etc but it went one for a couple of decades but people want to make sacrifices for other peoples well being. In some ways I also benefited from my involvement in my brothers care.

Arguments for Physician assisted suicide.:

1. Even with universal access to specialist palliative care, some dying people will still experience
severe, unbearable physical or emotional distress that cannot be relieved. Forcing dying
people to suffer against their wishes is incompatible with the values of 21st century
medicine.
2. Physician-assisted dying is a legal option for over 150 million people around the world. In
jurisdictions where it is lawful, there are eligibility criteria, safeguards and regulation in place
to protect patients.
3. Guidance in the UK for end-of-life practices, such as the withdrawal of life-sustaining
treatment, already contains safeguards to ensure decisions are made voluntarily, coercion
is detected and potentially vulnerable people are protected. There is no reason why these
safeguards could not be used effectively in assisted dying legislation.
4. The current law is not working. UK citizens travel to Switzerland, to facilities like Dignitas, to
avail themselves of physician-assisted dying, but this option is only available to those who
have the funds to do so. This often leads to people ending their lives sooner than they would
have wished because they need to be well enough to travel. There is no oversight under
UK law about who travels abroad for an assisted death; anyone who provides assistance –
doctors, family or friends – is breaking the law, which can lead to criminal investigations.
5. There is widespread public support for, and tacit acceptance of, physician-assisted dying
within society. Given this, it would be fairer and safer to have a properly controlled and
regulated system within the UK.
6. Some people, knowing that they are dying, want to be able to exercise their autonomy and
determine for themselves when and how they die, but need medical advice and support
to achieve this. Doctors should not be able to impose their personal beliefs on competent,
informed adults who wish to exercise this voluntary choice. Legislation would contain a
conscientious objection clause to protect those healthcare professionals who did not want
to participate.
7. The existence of legislation allowing assisted dying brings reassurance and peace of mind for
many people with terminal illness and their loved ones, even though only a small percentage
actually use it when the time comes

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/4394/bma-arguments-for-and-against-pad-aug-2021.pdf

This is from a British medical association (BMA) document:

Arguments against Physician assisted suicide.:

1. Laws send social messages. An assisted dying law, however well intended, would alter
society’s attitude towards the elderly, seriously ill and disabled, and send the subliminal
message that assisted dying is an option they ‘ought’ to consider.
2. So-called ‘safeguards’ are simply statements of what should happen in an ideal world.
They do not reflect the real-world stresses of clinical practice, terminal illness and family
dynamics. It is impossible to ensure that decisions are truly voluntary, and that any coercion
or family pressure is detected.
3. For most patients, high-quality palliative care can effectively alleviate distressing symptoms
associated with the dying process. We should be calling for universal access to high quality
generalist and specialist palliative care, rather than legalising physician-assisted dying.
4. Licensing doctors to provide lethal drugs to patients is fundamentally different from
withdrawing ineffective life-sustaining treatment, and crosses a Rubicon in medicine. The
role of doctors is to support patients to live as well, and as comfortably, as possible until they
die, not to deliberately bring about their deaths.
5. Currently, seriously ill patients can raise their fears, secure in the knowledge that their doctor
will not participate in bringing about their death. If doctors were to have the power to provide
lethal drugs to patients to end their lives, this would undermine trust in the doctor-patient
relationship. Some patients (particularly those who are elderly, disabled or see themselves
as ‘a burden’) already feel that their lives are undervalued and would fear that health
professionals will simply ‘give up’ their efforts to relieve distress, seeing death
as an easy solution.
6. Once the principle of assisted dying has been accepted, the process becomes normalised
and it becomes easier to accept wider eligibility criteria or to widen eligibility through the use
of anti-discrimination legislation.
7. In modern clinical practice many doctors know little of patients‘ lives beyond what the busy
doctor may gather in the consulting room or hospital ward. Yet the factors behind a request
for assisted dying are predominantly personal or social rather than clinical. Assisted dying is
not a role for hard-pressed doctors.

https://www.bma.org.uk/media/4394/bma-arguments-for-and-against-pad-aug-2021.pdf

God worship and dogmatism bothers me. — god must be atheist

I grew up with a lot of hell and damnation and The sect I grew up in tends to believe most people are going to hell and most Christians are not true Christians.

But the belief in hell is widespread and I find it shocking, brutal and inhumane, frightening etc.

I don't think it or religion per se are positions reached through philosophy but they are extreme positions that people don't seem to appreciate how extreme they are.

To hold an extreme position in philosophy may just mean it is far away from positions held by society or other people.

Moral skepticism does not exist. — god must be atheist

Do you mean most people have moral attitudes and opinions? I would agree with that.

What I have a problem with is the notion of moral facts or moral truths.

We probably have to act as if morality were real though. We can be agnostic about moral truths and maybe just have a no harm principle.

Forbidding yet another expression of personal volition doesn't improve them. — Vera Mont

I think autonomy does not make sense if you are going to kill yourself. You can't express autonomy once you are dead.

Have you got an argument for autonomy? We don't chose to be born, we don't chose our parents, our religious upbringing, schools etc.

I don't think we can have consistent autonomy without undermining many process in life including creating children.

People think we have a responsibility to those we create, a responsibility to others etc. If a man or woman has young children or even older children killing themselves can create a burden for them, for surviving relatives and friends and even lead to another suicide through grief and loss.