“The Assisted Dying Bill is an ethical muddle – It is more than 50 years in Britain since anyone was put to death by order of a court. Do we really need to go back to it[?]” by Charles Moore of the The Telegraph. Published on September 6, 2015.
It is a great time to be doing this post, as my Honors Seminar group and I have just completed a discussion regarding assisted suicide’s pros, cons, and its predicted effect upon its proposed enactment in the United States. Charles Moore, who I have predicted to be a Liberal (member of Labour party), posted an article today, in which he addresses the controversial “Assisted Dying Bill” I was able to identify through Moore’s critical voice that he views the bill confusing and unnecessary through many reasons, questions, and possible situations. First, he includes that it would be personally tolling on the doctors or nurses administering the treatment, as the bill requires that the terminal patient deliver the drugs themselves. The staff would have to continually check the progress of the death. Second, he argues that it would be personally detrimental on the family, upon hearing of the terminal patient’s wishes. Finally, Moore frequently uses the “It is more than 50 years in Britain since anyone was put to death by order of a court” as a way of counter-arguing this bill. However, this defense is, in fact, unrelated to a person’s choice. It would not be an order of the court, it would be processed through the court. As you may see, Moore’s arguments sound very pathos-driven, and somewhat unreliable. I think that this article may change the way I view Moore’s arguments, as I feel he is supporting the Conservative party.
This is unrelated, but I also did not understand the purpose of the ad hominem attack on Corbyn.