It’s not possible for that to happen in the UK without a further bill in Parliament. I believe in Canada the law has changed as a result of decisions by the courts.
“If we allow terminally ill the choice to die painlessly and with dignity, we’re actually welcoming doctors telling anybody with any ailment to kill themselves” is a wild take.
You can apply the same fallacy to practically any law. It’s absurd.
“They’ve introduced an age of consent?? This is a slippery slope! Soon the government will prevent all reproduction!1”
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.
You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.
You’re advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.
I’ve worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That’s what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.
If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you’d have this “we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn’t have.”
Regardless, it’s pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.
Lol you’re just trolling now. You don’t even know how those work.
Calling out the slippery slope argument for being the nonsense that it is is not an example of circular reasoning.
Me sharing my experience and saying that I think you’d have a different view if you had seen what I’ve seen is not an anecdotal fallacy - that is where you use anecdotes and try to represent them as objective facts.
I didn’t dismiss your view via ad populum fallacy, I just said it’s pointless moaning about the idea of people dying painlessly if they choose because the debate has already been settled by MPs and the public don’t have the appetite to have them backtrack on it.
The appeal to authority fallacy is about dismissing an opinion as being invalid because an authorative figure days otherwise. That’s not what I said. I said the debate has been settled, so it’s pointless campaigning against right now.
Why do you want people to suffer for as long as possible? What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised? Is there any evidence? Because “they just will mate. Slippery slope innit.” isn’t one IMO.
Except this is nothing like the procedure Canada has in place.
It will be eventually, if we’re not careful. The capitalists are gradually trying to normalise it.
It’s not possible for that to happen in the UK without a further bill in Parliament. I believe in Canada the law has changed as a result of decisions by the courts.
So the slippery slope fallacy, got it.
“If we allow terminally ill the choice to die painlessly and with dignity, we’re actually welcoming doctors telling anybody with any ailment to kill themselves” is a wild take.
You can apply the same fallacy to practically any law. It’s absurd.
“They’ve introduced an age of consent?? This is a slippery slope! Soon the government will prevent all reproduction!1”
It’s not a fallacy. It literally happened in Canada.
It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.
And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.
You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.
You’re advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.
I’ve worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That’s what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.
If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you’d have this “we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn’t have.”
Regardless, it’s pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.
Circular reasoning fallacy
Anecdotal fallacy
Ad populum fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
Lol you’re just trolling now. You don’t even know how those work.
Calling out the slippery slope argument for being the nonsense that it is is not an example of circular reasoning.
Me sharing my experience and saying that I think you’d have a different view if you had seen what I’ve seen is not an anecdotal fallacy - that is where you use anecdotes and try to represent them as objective facts.
I didn’t dismiss your view via ad populum fallacy, I just said it’s pointless moaning about the idea of people dying painlessly if they choose because the debate has already been settled by MPs and the public don’t have the appetite to have them backtrack on it.
The appeal to authority fallacy is about dismissing an opinion as being invalid because an authorative figure days otherwise. That’s not what I said. I said the debate has been settled, so it’s pointless campaigning against right now.
Why do you want people to suffer for as long as possible? What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised? Is there any evidence? Because “they just will mate. Slippery slope innit.” isn’t one IMO.
Canada
^^
You’re just back at the “it’s a slippery slope” argument.