Dignity

[as]

the proposed laws are there to read for anybody interested and bothered enough to find answers. All the proposed safeguards etc are explained in great detail. It is on page 1 of this thread. read it please! why do we have to keep explaining the same things over and over again....what is the point of contributors adding the needed links if no one reads them? *sigh*

[shetlandpeat]

It is not about killing those who do not fit in with society in any form. It is simply a mechanism for those who can administer to them selves a cocktail of drugs at their choice to end the suffering they feel. While I agree that life is fantastic, for some it is not, they have had the best of it and wish to leave. If life is good, no need to destroy it, however, again I ask, why would you want someone to continue a miserable and painful existance beacause of your own personal fears of your own demise. Very few will understand the processes that folk who tread this path go through to meet the conclusion. What you fail to mention are the millions who consider this path and do not take it. I do find it upsetting that we are happy to see our loved ones in such a condition and are bound by fear to give them the final release from their condition at their request.

 

I worry now that you will have the same attitude towards a living will, where folk again choose how far they go with the self preservation of life. I worry that you will go against that choice if you could that folk have made. I worry that we cling on to an ethos created by folk of lesser understanding but a determination to control in the name of a diety.

 

It is your choice, and it is a choice you have. It is after all, my life.

 

Folk need to be prepared to some degree for their passing in cases.

Edited July 20, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[as]

Well said!

I just wish that religion could be kept out of what is (to my mind) a purely medical matter. This is quite insulting to atheists, to have the church sticking their noses into the lives of people who don't share their beliefs. Is this a form of discrimination, I wonder?

[Ghostrider]

....is it then fare to stop suicidal people from killing themselves. after all they have decided that their life is intolerable. what should be done to protect those being pressurized. think your an aged person who needs care and has to go into a home a lot will wish to be dead at this point is that ok..  simply put if allow it there is no line.    

 

IMHO, it is fair to offer whatever proven effective treatment may be available to a suicidal person whom, it can be proven has a genuine stand alone mental illness which is the reason why they have reached the point of being suicidal, what is NOT acceptable is the assumption that anyone contemplating or planning suicide IS mentally ill, just because they are having such thoughts. I do not accept that a rational and sane individual cannot have real and genuine compelling reasons to justify that for them lights out is the only acceptable way forward.

 

I have no problem with anyone whose health has deteriorated to the point becoming resident in a care home is their only option, and as a result find themselves suicidal, being allowed to see suicide through. While some folk wish to cling to whatever scrap of life still exists regardless of what it takes just to get from morning to night each day, plenty of others are of the opinion that when you hit the point of needing nursed hand and foot 24/7 its time to go. Likewise while some care home residents find the enviornment suits them well and they enjoy as best they can their time there, others, particularly those who have valued their independence and/or privacy highly in life up to that point, find such places their ideal of a pure living hell.

 

Pre-NHS days, nature and money dictated when and how a person lived or died, since the NHS started doctors and money have dictated when and how a person lived or died. Neither is or was ideal, as death by definition can never be considered "good", just the lesser evil where circumstances dictate it has to be like that. Arguably nature was a more merciful reaper than doctors have often turned out to be, and right now doctors are the main scythe and hour glass carriers. Individuals' rights and preferences have been eroded as a result of that evolution, and anything, policed and monitored adequately to prevent abuse, that gives the individual some of those rights and preferences back, is something I'm not going to knock before its given a chance.

[brian.smith]

If we allow this where do we stop it is a slippery slope that will be misused do we progress to euthinize severly disabled babies. Laws are usualy a progression but this is a progression to what we will die when we die as we have always done there is no need for a helping hand

[as]

Thank you Ghostrider for confirming to me that I am not alone in that thinking. All too often suicide is automatically linked to depression or mental illness and that line of thinking has bothered me for a long time. The simple fact that people might just be pigsick of life and the world we have to live in is completely overlooked. There was an elderly Lady a few months back who went to Dignitas for exactly the same reasons.

 

My husband said to me that if ever "they" would make him go into a care home, he would rather kick the bucket as that was not the way he would want to live and end his days there, away from home and his dogs. He called it "unbearable". To be told what to eat and when and to give up all the little things that make his life enjoyable now, to have to live in an environment that is alien to him.

 

Brian, I really find it hard to figure out where these ludicrous ideas keep coming from that an assisted suicide law would lead to disabled babies being euthanized? Nobody suggested anything like that! Exactly which part of the proposed bill, which part of the process of application which would be needed  to be even considered as an applicant is it that leads you to that conclusion? If you and PaulB could please pinpoint that exact wording than maybe we can discuss that aspect and actually make some headway in this thread. So far it feels we are going round in circles as nobody has yet given a clear and concise indication of what exact part of the proposed bill bothers them. It's pretty pointless trying to discuss something if the other side never gives a clear answer and only says "I don't like it". I am going to leave this thread until somebody actually comes up with a better argument against.   

[JustMe]

If we allow this where do we stop it is a slippery slope that will be misused do we progress to euthinize severly disabled babies. Laws are usualy a progression but this is a progression to what we will die when we die as we have always done there is no need for a helping hand

Yes well governments in the past have done this and I am sure it will happen again in the future.  In fact I am certain that I heard some right winger in the UK saying that if not actually killed they should be left to die naturally.

 

But I am wondering how the discussion about Dignity at the end of life has got round to suicide.  I suspect that the vast majority of suicide attempts are more a cry for help than a serious attempt to opt out of life and I believe that anyone attempting suicide needs skilled help to try to decide that life is worth living after all.  Note I said skilled rather than professional as someone who cares and can empathise with the troubled person could be every bit as good and maybe better than a professional with or without a drug cabinet.

 

Which brings me to end of life and the thorny problem of assisted suicide.  First I think the law in the UK needs to be clear about any criminal charges.  Should I be guilty of a crime if gave somebody some Dignitas literature or their phone number?.  I think not.  What if I was to pay their fare to Switzerland and Dignitas costs.  Again I think not but I am not so sure the law would agree with me.  And if I was to take them to Switzerland and sit holding their hand while Dignitas did their stuff?.  I think people who have done this live in fear of prosecution but they should surely not be a criminal unless of course they did it to get rid of an inconvenient but rich relative.

 

Then there are the people who administer a fatal dose of something in the UK. I am sure that medical staff sometimes increase the dose of painkillers to that which takes away the pain but also that there are carers, often family, who may find a way to ease someone's passing.  At the moment that is clearly a criminal offence but I am inclined to think that the law needs to change so that, with safeguards to prevent murder, helping someone to die would not be illegal.

[paulb]

i dont believe a spouse that holds there partners hand will ever be prosecuted. however if they give the meds in this country thats a different issue,

 

re the drug dose no profesional should be giving a lethal dose to treat symptoms. yes i know it happens. they would add different combinations of drugs to control pain. also when a person has been on a morphine based pain drug its very hard to say what is lethal as what would kill a normal person would be there normal dose. seriously some folks can be on very high doses and live. 

 

you see how easy that step to far is. the friend going into a care centre is not covered by this new law but you think its ok to die. what about a spouse who loses there partner after many years together should they be allowed. they often want to die and are of sound mind. yet with the right support and after they have overcome there grief they could have a happy life again. yet you would allow them to die.

 

what we need in the uk is very good palliative care services properly funded. for example most palliative care is based around cancer very little has been done for terminal dementia or other life ending illnesses. lets get them in place then see if there is a demand. 

[Ghostrider]

you see how easy that step to far is. the friend going into a care centre is not covered by this new law but you think its ok to die. what about a spouse who loses there partner after many years together should they be allowed. they often want to die and are of sound mind. yet with the right support and after they have overcome there grief they could have a happy life again. yet you would allow them to die.

 

Paul, its neither my, nor your's nor anyone else's right to have an opinion on whether its "ok" for another person to choose to end their own life, for whatever reason(s) they choose to do so. To suggest so, is IMHO rude, arrogant, selfish and patronising. If an individual doesn't have an absolute right over whether they choose life or death for themselves whenever they choose to make such a choice, then individuals have no rights at all. The only thing which should have the ability to take away that right of choice, is death itself.

 

I don't see why if someone loses a lifetime partner they should forego the right to self-determination in relation to their own life. Although I do think bringing this in to the debate is very much a red herring.

 

This is a debate about assisted suicide, not suicide per se. Someone who loses a long term partner is obviously going through a grief process, and in the same way as someone suffering from a proven mental illness deserves to be offered help and support to get through that and come out the other side, so should they. Any legislation on the subject would only be acceptable to me if safeguards were inbuilt in to it to recognise and address such, hopefully temporary circumstances.

 

The fact of the matter is though, that although undoubtedly many individuals have some level of suicidal thoughts while working through a grief process, only a miniscule number of them, who have the ability to go through with suicide unaided, actually do so. Given that from the total number of individuals who decide to go through with suicide at any one time, the number requiring assistance to do so is likely to be relatively small, I think the number who wish to go through with suicide as a result of their having lost a long term partner, and require assistance to do so, are likely to be extremely tiny, and simply cannot be used as adequate justification to deny by far and away the vast majority their individual rights.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Ghostrider

[shetlandpeat]

Last Friday 18 July, following almost 10 hours of debate, Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill passed its first major hurdle, Second Reading. You can read the Hansard formal report of the debate here.

The Bill will now pass on to Committee Stage - where it will be debated clause by clause when Parliament re-opens after the summer break.

In 2006, when Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill had its Second Reading debate it was defeated by a wrecking amendment which secured 148 votes to 100. This time there was no wrecking amendment tabled and no vote - it is likely, as identified by the BBC, that opponents were not confident they had enough support to block the progress of the Bill.

 

On the day, there were over 120 speakers, and it was clear that lobbying from the public had played a major part in the debate, with letters from both supporters and opponents read out.

 

[paulb]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/13/belgium-law-extends-euthanasia-children-all-ages

 

so no creep. mm this is what happens.

 

with a family with downs and Cystic fibrosis and a sister in law that had serious life threatening heart ops from 7 days old im even more opposed  to it. a niece watched her son die from a brain tumor it would have been worse if she was faced with that choice. your heart may be in the right place but the law will always changed so more an more is allowed.

[shetlandpeat]

I am happy that this is in open and full debate at last, as you can see, there is more support for this debate. Refusing the debate, as it happened last time stifles folks thoughts and views.

 

 

The law lifts Belgium's age restrictions on euthanasia and can sanction it where children have a terminal and incurable illness, are near death, and suffering "constant and unbearable physical" pain, and where parents and professionals agree to the choice.

 

It will always be emotive, but it is continually saddening to see that folk at times of great distress after helping fulfill the wishes of a loved one are then hauled before the legal system. We will have to watch this now will we not?

 

You will never stop folk murdering other folk. It will always happen. You can give the option of choice when it comes to an individuals right to live or die.

[Ghostrider]

a niece watched her son die from a brain tumor it would have been worse if she was faced with that choice.

 

Any worse than the dilemma of a close relative watching someone slowly die in extreme pain and wanting more than anything to end their suffering, but powerless to do so because of some statute enacted by a bunch of suits in Westminster, I think not.

 

What you're saying is, the rights of some, namely those who find it "easier" not to have to think about the possibility of pulling the switch to end a relatives pain and suffering, are far more important than the rights of someone who would love nothing more than to be able to be the one to relieve a relative of their pain and suffering. I'm seeing selfishness and sadism lurking in there, and none of it of the pretty kind.

 

I think you're muddying the waters between compulsory and optional here. In your given example your niece would not have had to face such a choice, unless she chose to. We are talking about giving an individual the choice to go there if they choose to do so. We're not talking about it being dumped in the lap of everybody who finds themselves in the qualifying circumstances, and demanding they choose whether or not to exercise it as a "right".

 

In suicide the victim chooses the moment it will happen, in assisted suicide where the victim no longer has lucid input, their nominated helper will choose the moment it will happen, if it happens any other way, its not being done right, and I won't support it.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

i dont believe a spouse that holds there partners hand will ever be prosecuted. however if they give the meds in this country thats a different issue,

 

re the drug dose no profesional should be giving a lethal dose to treat symptoms. yes i know it happens. they would add different combinations of drugs to control pain. also when a person has been on a morphine based pain drug its very hard to say what is lethal as what would kill a normal person would be there normal dose. seriously some folks can be on very high doses and live. 

 

 

So basically you're saying that to see people scream in absolute agony until they pass out when they can't stand the pain no more is more humane?  I don't think so.  Face it, paulb, most domesticated animals in agony get treated better than humans do ...

 

... so it's okay to end an animal's life but not a human's life?  Why is that then?  What gives another human being the right to choose; isn't a death a death regardless?

 

I happen to agree with Ghostie and SP on this one.

[paulb]

how can it be assisted suicide for a very young child. you may call it that but it is no. its involuntary euthanasia which is vastly different from and older sick person choosing to end their life

 

 by allowing others doctors or parents to decide has taken that big step of following the example of nazi germany before the war . they really believed that the mentally sick and disabled were better off dead for there sakes and the states, 

 

 who would you be happy to say your worthy of death. your gp or hospital doctor. well would you trust them totally to only look at your interests.  

 

say you had a tumour that would as they guess kill you at some point within the next 6 months would they consider the costs of late cancer treatments that can cost into the high 1000s of pounds per treatment or a quick dose of potassium costing pennies. this of course is an extreame example, but doctors are making similar choices..

 

by the way saying someone has only 6 months to live is a pure guess as no doctor can work out the timing of a death so closely. the wife has treated lots of folks that have way out lived a doctors guess.