That's not a winning move for those that sought the right of voluntary euthanasia (that to which the subject consents).
As for your argument we can see it in action expressed via the number of firefighters that start fires to keep themselves employed and I take your point that the only defence is to eliminate fire departments.
If you think that the edge case (killing people) outweighs the normal case (treating people), then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not arguing against the idea that a small number of people have suffering so severe that they may seek suicide to alleviate it. I'm arguing that the normalisation of such "treatment" is fraught with unintended consequences and perverse incentives. And people may (will) be killed who otherwise would not have been as a result.
To prevent innocent people from being killed as a result, yes. That does seem like the more ethical choice.
This is not about my opinion of whether an individual should be allowed to end their own life - which I'm agnostic of. This is about the normalisation and institutionalisation of such practice as inherently risky and devaluing of human life.
When you allow the state to end a life under any circumstances, you open the door to allowing the state to end a life under any circumstances. (aka - the slippery slope argument)
Comments
That's not a winning move for those that sought the right of voluntary euthanasia (that to which the subject consents).
As for your argument we can see it in action expressed via the number of firefighters that start fires to keep themselves employed and I take your point that the only defence is to eliminate fire departments.
If you think that the edge case (killing people) outweighs the normal case (treating people), then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not arguing against the idea that a small number of people have suffering so severe that they may seek suicide to alleviate it. I'm arguing that the normalisation of such "treatment" is fraught with unintended consequences and perverse incentives. And people may (will) be killed who otherwise would not have been as a result.
And your plan to deal with unintended consequences is what?
To avoid any legal assisted dying at all under any circumstances?
To prevent innocent people from being killed as a result, yes. That does seem like the more ethical choice.
This is not about my opinion of whether an individual should be allowed to end their own life - which I'm agnostic of. This is about the normalisation and institutionalisation of such practice as inherently risky and devaluing of human life.
When you allow the state to end a life under any circumstances, you open the door to allowing the state to end a life under any circumstances. (aka - the slippery slope argument)
Right, you are arguing a strawman