5 minutes - back from kids before eating!
Realman - you have moved away formn the point again (IMHO)
Or maybe due to the joys of the internet we misunderstand each other? I don't for one minute think you go around killing people because they are depressed. My view is that if (for example) I am terminally ill and/or suffering a lifetime of pain, am in sound mind and do not want to carry on enduring this for the rest of my life why should I not be able tohave someone help me peacefully and with dignity leave this planet (as opposed to jumping off a cliff, trying to drown myself etc)
Are these meant to be credible suggestions?
And then the police/coroner/prosecutor says, "so this was a vulnerable man who couldn't propel his own chair or put the breaks on, and it fell off a cliff... ...manslaughter surely someone has been negligent. Hand on a minute, the person who was with him stood to gain (financially or reduced 'burden' etc), perhaps this was premeditated."He can communicate. So he could suggest his wife takes him up Beachy Head and leaves the brakes off his wheelchair (accidentally) for instance.
Likewise - vulnerable disabled man drowns in bath means someone who should have been caring for him was negligent.Or he could 'drown' in the bath.
until someone who might have care for him at some point but who doesn't agree with euthanasia (or certainly not this brutal DIY form) says, "but he never had a radio in the bathroom".Or his stereo that he loves listening to in the bath could topple in.
possibly, but nobody can guarantee that someone won't get suspicious or ask questions, or some 'do gooder' who disapproves won't prompt them to; all they are asking is that the DPP agrees that its not in the public interest to prosecute in such a case.There's plenty of ways. Now he's made a fuss over wanting to die, it just means there'll be an increased focus on him if he does.
The only way is for someone else to murder him - and risk getting prosecuted - and as none of these methods are 'nice' a court or prosecutor might feel it was somewhat innapropriate and more deserving of punishment; its not like a case where he could physically do it himself. As someone else has pointed out in the case of degenerative conditions this actually means there is pressure on the 'ill' to end it early whilst they can DIY rather than involve others.
That was the point I was trying to make. I'm not for one minute suggesting the above are dignified, nice, appealling, or anything like that. I'm just suggesting there are ways.
The other case today was a situation with someone who wants to go to Dignitas. DPP won't prosecute if a close family member helps him get there. Close family members don't want to / can't bring themselves to help, but if he asks a volunteer to help him get there they will be prosecuted. Now the volunteer has even less to "gain" than his family.
My view is that if (for example) I am terminally ill and/or suffering a lifetime of pain, am in sound mind and do not want to carry on enduring this for the rest of my life
See, that's the problem. You're glossing over that step. How do you know someone is of sound mind? It's nearly impossible.
So if someone is ill we should not treat them differently from a normal human being?
When does being suicidal become rational? When does someone wanting to die be reasonable?
Realman - read my post. I was talking a hypothetical situation about MYSELF in SOUND MIND. Glossing over that step is it?
Or do you just like to disagree 😉
I've already said I'm pro euthanasia, so it's obvious what I think regarding that.
Although how do you know you're of sound mind? Do people who are insane know they're insane? Do people who are depressed know they're depressed?
You know when you read things on the internet, and you know that the people writing those things don't actually have much experience of the thing they are talking about?
That's me that is.
I've worked in critical care for 25 years. I've seen more people die than anyone else on here, and I think that we should get our act together and allow people to choose how and when they get to die.
How do you know someone is of sound mind? It's nearly impossible.
Are you telling me that you cannot tell when you meet people whether they are sane or mad? Your parents, cycling buddies etc you are literally clueless as to their sanity? If that is the case then the problem is you are mad 😉
It's nearly impossible.
Have you heard of the mental health act? Aware of psychiatrist and the like who would decide.
Re your last post you seem to want to start a non technical [ nowt wrong with that] discussion of the philosophical problems of sanity and definition - sort of like catch 22.
It has nothing to do with this actual case though or this issue generally.
Are these meant to be credible suggestions?
No - they're what I came up with in ten seconds of thought.
If I was sat wishing for death day-in day-out I'd have found the solution by now. I guess that was what I was trying to say. Where there's a will there's a way.
It has nothing to do with this actual case though or this issue generally.
I would disagree. People should have the best care they can get. If they want to die, then we should help them.
However, if they only want to die because they have a mental health problem, like depression, then we shouldn't let them die, that would be silly. We should treat the underlying problem - the depression.
Like I've said, the tricky thing is deciding whether or not their thought processes are clear or not - and deciding who gets to make this decision.
You know when you read things on the internet, and you know that the people writing those things don't actually have much experience of the thing they are talking about?That's me that is.
I've worked in critical care for 25 years. I've seen more people die than anyone else on here, and I think that we should get our act together and allow people to choose how and when they get to die.
Simply, this.
if they only want to die because they have a mental health problem, like depression, then we shouldn't let them die, that would be silly.
Has anyone argued otherwise?
Does this have anything to so with this case?
Well yeah. A lot of people seem to think that if someone wants to die, we should help them do so, without realising that it's really nowhere near that simple.
We can't just change the law - it needs a lot of consideration.
Again AFAIK no one is suggesting a change to let the suicidal commit suicide due to depression or other underlying mental health issue so i am not sure why we do need to discuss it.
Feel free to pick holes in this idea...
From voting age we can choose to register each year a vote, for or against euthanasia. Our doctors has a computer system/touchscreen thing so it could even be done using that.
You build up a history of your beliefs to support your right to die or to protect you from euthanasia.
.
glad to hear it, but that's a long way away from an example of what is being discussed. What if she had a degenerative/terminal/perpetual condition, had no quality of life and had rung you and had the same discussion everyday for a couple of years? Bit closer to the point.If, for example, my mum called me up right now and told me she wanted to die, I wouldn't kill her.
I'm pretty sure when your life is shit you have the right to be on a bit of a downer without being classified mental.
the reason for the indecision is fear, the law cannot find a way of opening the way for these people to 'legally' end their suffering without opening up huge unknowns and risk of where it all might lead in the future. No doubt the influence of the religious voices have a huge bearing on the outcome also?
The human races own desire to extend life will be it's undoing ....... that's unless micro organisms don't get there first!
Very sad. I rather think the next headline will be informing of either an inquest or arrest. That's not a judgment of any kind; that time has passed.
[i]I rather think the next headline will be informing of either an inquest or arrest.[/i]
I have to be honest, that was my thought too.
Still, RIP, and condolences to friends and family
all i'll add is if my dearly departed father knew the pain he would go through and the the pain his wife and the rest of the family went through in the last few weeks/days of loosing his battle with cancer there is noway on earth he would have gone that far.
If the question is "do I have the right to die"? then yes.
monkey_boy - Memberall i'll add is if my dearly departed father knew the pain he would go through and the the pain his wife and the rest of the family went through in the last few weeks/days of loosing his battle with cancer there is noway on earth he would have gone that far.
We have lost three members of the family in the last 3 years, 2 from Asbestosis and one from multiple organ failure over a prolonged period. In the cases of 2 of them the last week was just watching a husk lying in a bed breathing, devoid of any nourishment or liquid (as is standard practice I believe) and showing no response at all. The other took several weeks in this state - all had to wait until critical organs failed, at which point they died. I was with 2 of them hours before they finally died and I find it inhumane, immoral and positively cruel to do this to them. They were clearly passed the point of no return, speeding them on their way in a painless way that caused no suffering would be the right thing to do. These are clear end of life situations and this problem needs resolving.
Locked-In syndrome sounds dreadful but does need to be separated out from cases like those above. I feel for the man who has just died and if there is any compassion left in the world it will be left to pass without further action, sadly I think the post above re inquests is more likely.
Natural causes apparently, after contracting pneumonia. Death certificate signed by a doctor and no need for further investigation.
Natural causes apparently, after contracting pneumonia. Death certificate signed by a doctor and no need for further investigation.
There's no way of saying this without it sounding wrong, but I'm so pleased to hear that. The pain he and his wife had been through must have been bad enough without the end also resulting in her arrest and charge.
What I do think is interesting is the notion that it was the fight to get the law changed that had kept him going. Once that fight was done, he had nothing left to live for.
It's odd how the body works; you see it so often, for example people who have been together their whole lives, and when one dies, the other follows soon after because the reason to live has gone.
There is a cruel irony in all this.
He fought for the right to have someone end his life without being charged, and yet he may have wanted that so badly that it kept him alive.
I watched my Grandma die for 2 years after she suffered a series of strokes.
Before her strokes she always said that she just wanted it to end quickly and would never want to have a slow death. As it turned out she lay there in bed for 2 years, unable to do anything for herself (what dignity is there in that) as her body died around her still active mind.
In the end she had a heart attack that didnt kill her, but luckily by that stage there was midical enough reason to give her a large dose of morphine to help her on her way...
What a desperately sad conclusion. Whatever the moral arguments on either side, ending one's life by refusing food is a very depressing end. RIP and peace to his family as well. A truly awful ordeal.
Its sad that a person has died unhappy and broken hearted in such a manner.
I think its more cruel to prolong life where there is no quality to it and the person wants to move on.
