Margo MacDonald's Euthanasia Bill.

[wullie m.]

Folks, if you agree with Big Margo's eminently sensible proposals in her Bill next week, email your MSP and tell them you expect their support!

wullie m

[mogling]

Thanks for the reminder Wullie.

 

I wrote to them all last year. Got back mostly fence-sitting twaddle, and a couple of 'religious-convictions-declared-interests'...

 

 

Hang on a minute... do WE not vote these folk in to represent US and OUR views??

 

If Politicians have beliefs that are going to conflict with their 'work', surely they shouldn't be in the jobs in the first place?

 

And politicians declaring a conflict of interest undermines the "democratic process"... They should be voting as their Electorate requests, surely?

[Ghostrider]

Hang on a minute... do WE not vote these folk in to represent US and OUR views??

 

We used to think we were, but for far too long now those elected seem to believe they've been voted in on the basis that the majority of the electorate who cared to express their opinion voted them in because they shared their views, and that they trusted their judgement to second guess the electorate's views and know what was in their "best interests".

 

Look where its gotten us, especially with the SIC.

 

There's a desperate need to force politicians at all levels to stop trying to think for themselves, as they can't, and return them to the simple and easy role they were intended for, as messengers to the big table for the masses.

[wullie m.]

How come we've ended up with so many narrow minded bubble heads at Holyrood. Some day they could be "in extremis" themselves and require the assistance of Margo's proposed changes to the law. Personally, if I found a terminal illness unbearable, I would want out "toot sweet" and don't consider it to be anybody's business but my own. This subject concerns us all, there are cases where we wouldn't let a dog go through what we inflict on unfortunate folk! Good Luck to the wummin, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls" wullie m

[Guest posiedon]

Personally, if I found a terminal illness unbearable, I would want out "toot sweet" and don't consider it to be anybody's business but my own.

Ahh but you're wrong wullie, it's god and all his "representatives" business. (Or so they like to tell us)

You mentioned dogs but it's not only dogs is it? If you let any animal in your care suffer needlessly; you will (rightly) be hauled before the courts.

It seems we humans are the only animal not afforded the right to a dignified and pain free death.

How did the cats and dogs et al pull that one off?

 

Watch this amazing 2 minute video and see what science can achieve (that apparently god can't or won't, maybe in years to come assisted dying will no longer be needed, just assisted living.

[fairislefaerie]

Religious beliefs stand in the way of a much needed change in law... Yet religious beliefs call for the lashing women. Its high time religion got a shake up alongside government members.

 

I got spouted the ole *religious beliefs* when I started getting on at our lordy and powerfull lot in support of this act, but, as I told them in my reply, faerie stories, trowie tales and other legends are no excuse for allowing the degrading treatment of humans to continue, we treat animals far better yet view ourselves as the superior species.. we're in the 20th century boys, tales of loaves and fishies are no longer a valid excuse for anything, this is the real world and its high time they got with it and acted accordingly.

 

The time for treating our fellow man with dignity fell overdue decades ago, what right has anyone to insist that a person must continue with a life that is either so full of pain that even the simple act of taking a breath is dreaded or requires care to the point of being mentally and emotionally degraded, that is no life, that does not even constitute an exhistance.

[wullie m.]

Amazing/Shocking wee video. wullie m

[snow]

My late husband had a terminal illness and while he was still able to make decisions for himself it was agreed with the G,P that when the time came and( sadly it did) he wanted his treatmentr stopped and helped out of his situation...The last painkilling injection was the one that brought to an end 10 m0nths of suffering and pain...It is the hardest dacision in the world to make and it took me years to come to terms with it...We are selfish by nature and dont want to lose our loved ones as the pain we suffer is almost too much to bear.

 

I greatly admire Margo for standing up for what she and thousands of others believe in. We have the right to make the decision on when to stop it all and be free of unending pain and indignity.

 

On a religeous note I am a christian and understand the right to preserve life as the precious thing it is but there comes a time when you know that as a christian would you really want to inflct the kind of hell some of these people are going through just for the sake of some numpty in the government who thinks he has a right to tell us different...I for one dont think so.

 

I will be backing Margo in her cause ....

[Michael]

The argument against doesn't need to be a purely religious one.

 

I think it's clear that there are cases in which euthanasia is the best option. Obviously when someone is suffering a great deal, but can't communicate their wishes to die effectively it would seem fairly intuitive to end their suffering past a certain point. But what point?

 

This is the sticking point for many. What safeguards would there be to make sure those who actually wanted to die, were the only ones allowed euthanasia? Would there not be cases where there was significant pressure for them to agree to it, or would there not be cases where relatives would lie about their wishes? In light of this, it seems necessary to draw the line somewhere.

 

For the record, i'm undecided. Just want to point out that there are perfectly coherent arguments with a bit more base than "ending life is bad"

[wullie m.]

I'm sure the safeguards will be detailed in the Bill. The point is that folk can do this at present if they travel to the Continent, hardly a satisfactory state of affairs for terminally ill people. Shades here of Irish lassies crossing to the UK to avoid their countries anti-abortion laws! wullie m

[Michael]

I'm sure the safeguards will be detailed in the Bill. The point is that folk can do this at present if they travel to the Continent, hardly a satisfactory state of affairs for terminally ill people. Shades here of Irish lassies crossing to the UK to avoid their countries anti-abortion laws! wullie m

 

Active euthanasia is only legal in Holland and Belgium as far as i'm aware, while assisted suicide is legal also in Albania and Luxembourg. I don't think it's legal in Switzerland but they have a weird approach to punishment that I don't really understand too well!

 

Basically - hardly equivalent to abortion etc where it's legal in most of the western world...

 

I agree in principle to the proposed benefits to the bill, but i'm not convinced by "i'm sure there will be safeguards". That's refusing to even consider possible negatives, which is a bit short sighted if you ask me.

I don't think that, at least if it follows any other existing model, this bill will have adequate safeguards. I'm not convinced that there can be adequate safeguards.

[joenorth]

As a practising health professional I've been, and continue to be, party to many situations where the continuation of life is accompanied by an absolute lack of quality of life, with no prospect of recovery and every prospect of getting worse. I absolutely and completely believe there is a place for this bill.

 

It has occurred to me that many individuals commenting on this (currently very hot) topic across Scotland will have had little experience of death, long-term illnesses, and palliative care. I encounter these frequently at work, and I firmly believe that if more of us were more familiar with these issues and the ramifications for people affected by them, more of us would be in favour of this bill. In a nutshell, many people commenting on this topic simply don't know what they are talking about.

 

When there is no possibility of cure, and continued life is likely to be accompanied by progressively decreasing quality of life, one should have access to means of deciding to end that existence. The issue is one of free and individual choice, whether in a living will or at the time. To me, it is incredibly offensive that others would deny me that choice because of their points of view. This bill simply presents a much needed option (with the emphasis very much on option).

[fairislefaerie]

Joe, some of us have, tis why i feel so strongly that this bill must be allowed to go through. What I had to stand back and let my closest friend experiance as part of what local medical staff considered to be a *dignified death* I would not wish upon any other person. To have a grown woman whom you've know since you started secondary school, crying in your arms due to the pain of cancer when it gets to the stage that not even heavy doses of morphine offer little relief, well the illness not only kills your friend, it kills a piece of you with it, nothing is worse than being with someone at this time and being totally and utterly unable to help them other than to sit and cry alongside them.

[DamnSaxon]

I'm another voice in favour, for reasons already very movingly expressed above. What constitutes a "dignified death" is entirely a matter for the individual whose death it is, and their family and friends. All that's gained by keeping someone in pain and suffering alive for as long as the science makes possible is - pain and suffering, a strange goal for people who are committed to the well-being of their patients. "Thou shalt not kill, but need'st not strive, Officiously to keep alive."

 

It's never going to be an easy decision, but it is absolutely right that the option should be there. Well done Margo and, if she succeeds, well done Scotland.

[Guest posiedon]

I got spouted the ole *religious beliefs* when I started getting on at our lordy and powerful lot in support of this act, but, as I told them in my reply, faerie stories, trowie tales and other legends are no excuse for allowing the degrading treatment of humans to continue, we treat animals far better yet view ourselves as the superior species.. we're in the 20th century boys,

I realise you live on a remote Island fairislefaerie and maybe you don't have access to modern media, (well obviously you have a PC) but we are actually in the 21st century now,

Sorry for being pedantic.

 

When the time comes for me, I just hope I'm able to do it for myself as I don't think asking for help [to die] would be very nice for the person you're asking (usually a spouse)

This is the sticking point for many. What safeguards would there be to make sure those who actually wanted to die, were the only ones allowed euthanasia? Would there not be cases where there was significant pressure for them to agree to it, or would there not be cases where relatives would lie about their wishes? In light of this, it seems necessary to draw the line somewhere.

Have you never heard of a living will Michael?