Posted on 09/27/2009 10:19:41 AM PDT by wagglebee
New guidance has been issued to clarify the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales - but it offers no guarantees against prosecution.
Instead the Director of Public Prosecutions has spelled out the range of factors that will be taken into account when deciding on cases.
The move has been welcomed by 33 year old Kelly Taylor from Bristol who is terminally ill.
In 2005 she tried to starve herself in the hope she would end her pain.
"I think the new guidelines are a breakthrough, as it gives people the knowledge when and where they're going wrong and when they could be prosecuted. It also gives people like me greater patient choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Gondring wrote:
I support the right to choose euthanasia.
OK, and how is that different from the Obama position?
There were PLENTY of FReepers who believed that Michael Schiavo had the “right” to murder Terri. They believed he had this “right” because years after her accident and AFTER she had been awarded a very large sum of money he “remembered” her saying that she wanted to die if she became disabled.
***These so called moral absolute posts have some of the sickest, judgmental name calling people I have encountered on Free Republic....That is why I call them pseudo Christians, because I have know real Christians that would never say the things some of these people do...
Well said.........these issues are much more agonizingly complex,especially at the personal level, than some of the simpler minds here would have us believe.***
Right and wrong, life and death, heaven and hell are more agonizingly complex than the simple would have us believe? Perhaps you could share with us what perversion that you enjoy that you would wrap up in this opaque blanket along with all the others.
***Well, I’m Catholic and, if you check post 51, you’ll see I wasn’t being whiny. I’ve never run to a mod.***
Good. I’m tired of our side being accused of whininess and finding out after the fact that it is true.
When you read the Bible in its entirety over and over, a larger picture emerges than when you cherry-pick a single line. The Book of Romans is but one place that gives a defense for the power of the "king" to order the deaths of lawbreakers or enemy combatants. That is an entirely separate issue from a society promoting the efficient killing of unwanted innocents such as fetuses, people with disabilities or the infirm elderly -- and, inevitably, using government coercion to compel medical caregivers to perform such acts.
Secondly, the original commandments were written in Hebrew, and the word was "murder", not "kill."
***I don’t know what the answer is, but I would like to see an option for people who are in extreme suffering, have no quality of life and do not want to endure it anymore. In such a situation, I consider it a basic human right to end one’s life if that is one’s personal choice.***
I would be interested in finding out what your idea of basic human right is. Plus, if somebody really wants to die that badly, there are an infinite number of ways to do so. Give me an example of somebody who wants to die and couldn’t do so in a private method.
Glad to hear it. The fact that is has happened so frequently in modern times (since the rise and worldwide organization of socialism/communism) is what is making this discussion so vital.
So I guess, "Thou shalt not kill", for example, is not a moral absolute. It appears to qualify under some circumstances and not under others. Sounds a lot like "situation ethics" to me.
But that wasn’t his right, AFAIC.
It was her right, and her right alone.
Wasn’t there a video of her saying she wanted to live?
There are videos where Terri is clearly aware of those around her. She tried to say she wanted to live, but wasn’t able to.
Are you feeling alright?
Maybe it’s been happening forever. Slavery would have had much the same end result for people as forced euthanasia does, (kill the weak and those perceived as useless).
You are right, it’s the rise of socialism/communism that is bringing back slavery. It’s just a different name now. I think one of it’s new names is Islam.
Either way, when someone is forced to die, it is murder.
Thanks Wagglebee.
So if a police officer shoots someone who is threatening a group of school children with a bomb and forces that person to die. Is it murder?
I honestly would like to know what you think.
***Are you feeling alright?***
Very well, thanks. My arthritis in knees and hands is making its presence known, but only slightly. My children are 1) outside playing in the lovely sunshine or 2) at a friend’s house and my wife is walking in the local Crop Walk to raise funds for the local soup kitchens as it is her turn this year.
Very kind of you to ask.
You're quite welcome and I'm glad to hear all is well there.
Killing to stop murder makes sense, if there is no other way to deal with it.
That’s part of why we fight wars.
I have to say I’m glad we’re not typing this in German, or Japanese. :-)
Me too!
Again I have to say, your response is senseless to me. Write about me all you want, just don't ping me, I have better things to do than answer you or read your posts. like cut my dogs nails...
Cerebrus is one of the sane voices on this thread, there were a couple of others, that were worth reading, yours and the other regulars on the (moral absolute) was not amongst them
The comment about the justice department was a real hoot...Rant about me all you want, just don't ping me, I am not interested...Same goes for the rest of the moral absolute group....God Bless and have a great Sunday....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.