Flick 🇬🇧 on Nostr: Interesting thought experiment. ...
Interesting thought experiment.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-slippery-slope-to-the-return-of-the-death-penalty/
Objections to the reintroduction of capital punishment typically fall into one of five categories: 1) the death penalty is inherently wrong because it is the intentional destruction of human life by the state; 2) the death penalty is prone to errors in the justice system and can lead to execution of the innocent; 3) the death penalty cannot be safely administered because doctors cannot participate in killing; 4) the death penalty might be administered in a way that is inhumane or superadds to the pain of death; and 5) the death penalty is uncivilised and reduces any society which uses it.
How does Leadbeater’s bill interact with these principles? Well, it establishes that there are circumstances in which the state can intentionally destroy human life, albeit as a supplier of the means of death rather than administering those means itself. It says the state is capable of designing safeguards that allow it to participate in killing without fear of error or abuse. It says health professionals can help to facilitate medically-induced death without it being unethical. It posits premature death not as a source of cruelty or pain but as a remedy for it, implying that there is a humane way to end human life. It suggests that permitting assisted suicide is a progressive step towards a more enlightened society in which people enjoy more autonomy over their bodies and their lives.
https://archive.ph/51j0H
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-slippery-slope-to-the-return-of-the-death-penalty/
Objections to the reintroduction of capital punishment typically fall into one of five categories: 1) the death penalty is inherently wrong because it is the intentional destruction of human life by the state; 2) the death penalty is prone to errors in the justice system and can lead to execution of the innocent; 3) the death penalty cannot be safely administered because doctors cannot participate in killing; 4) the death penalty might be administered in a way that is inhumane or superadds to the pain of death; and 5) the death penalty is uncivilised and reduces any society which uses it.
How does Leadbeater’s bill interact with these principles? Well, it establishes that there are circumstances in which the state can intentionally destroy human life, albeit as a supplier of the means of death rather than administering those means itself. It says the state is capable of designing safeguards that allow it to participate in killing without fear of error or abuse. It says health professionals can help to facilitate medically-induced death without it being unethical. It posits premature death not as a source of cruelty or pain but as a remedy for it, implying that there is a humane way to end human life. It suggests that permitting assisted suicide is a progressive step towards a more enlightened society in which people enjoy more autonomy over their bodies and their lives.
https://archive.ph/51j0H