Assisted Suicide – for or against

Duckman – you wont help your case by throwing insults in my general direction. Can you not forgive those who trespass against you?

You haven't actually offended me; as stated I just think you are a horses backside.Formed by examples such as the one above when you use the death of one of my family members to make a dig about religion.This is my opinion of you,(which may differ from other peoples)But none the less, you do respect my right to form an opinion, don't you?

I mentioned being a Christian because my beliefs are always going to figure in any decision I make over assisted suicide,(which was the op)

bump thingy for hanging thhread

I would be in favour if it was compulsory to do it in a more entertaining way. Say strapped to the front of a tank or dropped from a helicopter.

Against.
Life is a gift given to me, and nothing will stop me giving it back.

And additionally, if something needs "safeguards" to ensure nothing untoward happens, then you can guarantee there will be at least one case where someone dies who shouldn't have done. Would this grand scheme be worth it then?

Edukator. – I assume thats meant to be amusing? I'll take it as meant perhaps.

I was 19 and not living with him. He was living with my parents. I only knew of the first OD after the second time – and as soon as I knew he had taken the second OD I went to the family home to support the family. At that point he was comatose having taken what appeared to be a massive OD and remained so for 36 hrs until he was admitted to hospital ( as my mother could no longer cope with him at home and it appeared he was not going to die immediately.)

We can only take the decision we did at the time and must have no regrets. However I remain to this day ( 30 yrs on) very unhappy at the slow messy death that man had. It was so unnecessary.

The night after his overdose I stood at the foot of his bed pondering my next step. In the end I didn't take any active steps as he appeared to be sleeping away peacefully. If I had know then that it would take him a further two weeks to die in an undignified ( tho pain free) manner I might have reached a different decision.

bump bump glitch glitch

How far does the above mentioned legislation on next of kin deciding on feeding etc go?

I am not quite sure about the full ins and outs of what the situation is at it stands.

You want what's best for your loved one, and that doesn't mean killing them at a time of your choosing just because they can't control their bowel movements or use a spoon by themselves or talk or recognise you even though you've been together 50+ years (for example).

We will (as will 1/3rd of this forum's members) have to endure watching my father (in my case) slip ever further into dementia, eventually ending up in full time care, looked after by those better placed to look after hom until his death.

If you learnt anything from last night's lecture, you will know it's akin to a slow car crash. It happens in slow time and to be honest my father didn't really understand Xmas this year for the first time, my mother bought his presents to her, with his help in the shops, herself.

A sobering, not pleasant scenario, I think you'll agree.

Duckman. MY understanding of the legislation ( and it differs slightly in england and scotland) is that the wishes of the next of kin need to be taken into account as do any known wishes of the person themselves. It is not binding but the medical team must have a good reason to over ride it. If there is dispute a court will make a ruling.

So – the persons expressed wishes come first, the wishes of the next of kin next, The duty of the medical staff is to carry out that persons wishes unless they have a pressing reason why not ( I doubt no matter what I wrote down they would give me the bromptons cocktail for example )

If you write down a formal living will witnessed by a solicitor it makes it stronger and very unlikely a doctor could overturn it.

Its a pretty safe setup. This allow passive euthanasia – for example my mother has said that if she is demented and not able to swallow she does not want to be tube fed – thats passive euthanasia. It does not allow for active euthanasia.

Living wills

For – now stop struggling and get in the chair.

Of course I respect your right to form an opinion can I do the same without being called a horses arse please?
Can you just make some cogent points without insults as it does you, your faith and your argument no credit.

I wasn't joking TJ and was genuinely confused. Rather than calling you a hypocrit right off I posted something just provocative enough to get an explanation. Your explanation is perfectly resonable and confirms your status as worthy member of the caring profession.

The fact you were 19 and didn't know until after events is explanation enough and I apologise for any offence caused.

For.The last few hours of watching my mum dieing because of cancer was unbearable(for both her and I).Still remember pleading with her to "let go" during her last night with us. 😥

I did make relevant points, see below. Was your remark about how much of Gods love I saw in the death of a family member out of curiosity,or an attempt to bait me? Judging by some of your remarks on the climate change thread you are not slow to dish out insults."Do unto others etc…"

I didn't realise that I was in an "argument" I made my points about resorces and the decisions being made by others, I was curious to see what other people felt,that is why I posted on this thread.As yet you have not convinced me that these factors would not be a consideration.That is why I would be scared to see it become legal.My preference is for the law to be "passive" on it when it comes to chasing family members etc.

Edukator No offence taken. Because of what I have seen I know my own views are on he extreme of opinion and must take this into account when dealing with death and the dying.

Duckman – I understand thd point you have made. Unlike some others I have some sympathy for the religious point of view and you have not let it blind you.

For

But it’s very relevant for me both in the past and in the future!
I watched my father suffer a slow painful degrading death 10 years ago, he was ready to go but my step mother (who is very religious) prolonged it by paying for more care/drugs that just dragged it out against his wishes.

My wife has secondary progressive MS which is now at a stage where she has to rely on me for most daily tasks and she’s in constant pain, we have never discussed anything like this but she has said she won’t live to be old.

I am in the "for" camp.

(I am also interested in what other people think about it regardless what faith they may or may not have. Making snide comments at someone because their opinion include a religious faith is to me childish, narrow minded and becoming very boring on STW).

Roper +1

Point of order, Mr Chairman…

If a post includes a mention of religious faith as a) an attempt to support a position or b) an illustration of some difficulty with the reality of the subject, am I to take it that an atheist is not allowed to address either of these items?

Presumably because to do so is "childish" and ""narrow" minded…

I suspect this request is prompted from the "you can only speak about religion in hushed and reverential tones" school of thought, presumably leading to censorship for those timorous enough to feel they have the right to be as robust about religion as anything else that gets discussed here or elsewhere. Football, cycling, politics or whatever…

I would be interested to see the argument in support of the religion's "special case" in this regard.

Mr Woppit – it is a factor to be considered and I thought duckmans post were relevant and well thought out. He was not blindly following faith IMO

Mr Woppit – it is a factor to be considered and

Why?

As someone who deals with dying people probably a lot more than the rest of you, sometimes on a daily basis, I'm not going to say what I think about it.

I would like to point out that in the event of Assisted Suicide becoming a reality, you will need people with my experience and skill set, and I would need paying a decent wage, and would also like a reasonable pension that is not subject to being slagged off every two weeks.

That is all.

Because when we are dealing with someone dying their faith has a bearing on their views on it – as it does for their families.

This is not about right or wrong or anything but that individuals rights. If that individual wants to fight to the end – then that is their right. Their motivation for doing so is irrlevant

For

Their motivation for doing so is irrlevant

So – the reason why someone is fighting/ not fighting to the end is irrlevant (sic)?

Presumably it's not "irrlevant" to them.

So why is commenting on it out of bounds?

Against, unless I'm likely to inherit quite a bit of cash, in which case, for!

I have a degenerative disease,which will eventually seriously affect my quality of life.I am hoping by the time this happens i will be able to die in my own house not in a clinic in switzerland.

Dealing with the original post, and we’re discussing assisted suicide, it seems to me that Terry Pratchet's case is ever so slightly not normal.
He gets diagnosed with a rare form of Alzheimer’s, a form of dementia.
The visual image of a Dr standing over the patient just a few days after them being upright, with a Hippocratic oath in one hand and an ”on / off” button in the other is unrealistic.
A year ago my father was driving, he gets re-diagnosed in Feb’ 2009, 11 months later he doesn’t understand Christmas at all.
The future is bleak, but doesn’t involve turning off his life at any point.
Yes he will become too much for my mother to cope with, yes he will shrivel up both in body and in mind in a nursing home, one day he’ll have no idea who I am, no idea how to control his bowel movements and one day will stop breathing.
This is what awaits 1/3rd of the UK population.

At what point in this process would you be still fully aware and able to make the decision about the date of your death?
I can see the scenario for patients suffering from MS, Cancer, MND etc where the mind is left largely intact & there are plenty of examples in the press who have travelled to Switzerland to end their days.
And that’s why Terry Pratchet’s case is not actually that representative of what lies in store for us, as potential victims of dementia or potential carers of those loved ones who are suffering from the disease.

The reality of the situation where dementia’s concerned is you’re never going to be placed in this position outside of the actual physical diagnosis of dementia, and that’s not likely to mean you will want to end it any time soon as you still have lots and lots of living to do – witness TP’s continued crusade in the face of his impending journey through the windscreen to death, albeit in slow motion.

Sorry Junkyard, I only troll/post/contribute in my lunch break

Any evidence to support this anecdotal story?

None whatsoever – it's a hypothetical scenario we probably want to avoid.

It might be worth getting a stock of something lethal while you can then forlorn hope. This is not a flippant comment.

There was a long saga of a woman on our local TV that had cancer and wanted to die. The thing was she wanted to be killed rather than committing suicide so the courts refused. She was still walking well and could have reached any number of high places, and let's face it, a heroin overdose isn't that hard to come by.

forlorn hope – Member

I have a degenerative disease,which will eventually seriously affect my quality of life

Bummer, but best forum name ever.

I think we can discuss faith if it is the reason for someones decision. TJ is correct though duckman position is well thought and not entirely a view born of faith – the view on assisted suicide that is not me as a horses arse
We do dismiss faith at times too quickly on here and face to face I would never be that rude to a person of any faith in person as I am on here. I do think we are allowed to challenge their views and many on here object to the amount of influence religion has today and did in the past. Organised religion is not exactly known for its tolerance of non believers or even dissenting believers though – I accept that most individual christians [and other faiths] I know are fairly tolerant and do actually try to live good moral lives.
Duckman at some point in the past [and possibly this thread] clearly I have offended you and I apolgise for this. You have the right to an opinion as do I perhaps we could both try and express it in a more friendly manner in the future?

Sorry Junkyard, Fair point.I had posted about my experience with somebody who had a slow undignified passing, I was a bit hacked off with you and woppits post.The only reason I had mentioned the fact I am a Christian,which most of the usual faces on here will be aware of,is because it was relevant to my thinking on the subject.I also liked the point made on the previous page that anything that needs safeguards is dangerous.I played prop from the age of six and boxed/sparred/coached from seven to just under thirty, so I suppose I will be at the business edge of any legislation in thirty years.

Woppit,

"you can only speak about religion in hushed and reverential tones"

If that is what I wanted, I wouldn't be posting on STW would I?

In a personal sense for, in a professional sense if it ever came in I'd have to read the reasons for it where my position stands before making a decision.

As for religion in these matters, often seems crazy to many of us I myself can't understand it but people have their beliefs and live their lives based on this belief it has to be respected.

but people have their beliefs and live their lives based on this belief it has to be respected.

Why?

Because thats ethics Mr Woppit. We are discussing personal decision here. Many people religious or not have weird beliefs that colour their decisions.

I would dismiss out of hand any religious influence on policy over this so on decisions that affect others. However on personal decision religion is one factor to consider.

Would you insist a catholic have a termination because the foetus is badly damaged? Would you insist a vegetarian eats meat?

For policy decision that affect others religious influences should abe dismissed out of hand. for personal decisions its a clear part of the decision process.

I think your ideas on this are completely wrong and muddleheaded. I have no idea the basis for you deciding the way you do. However its your decision and must be respected.

You need to read up on competency and decision making. People have the right to make stupid decisions and the reasons why they do are irrelevant.

Mr Woppit – Member
but people have their beliefs and live their lives based on this belief it has to be respected.
Why?

Liberal tolerance ???
People can make any decision they wish without restraint. The point at which we should be concerned is when they then try and impose their views on others – you [ and I] think religous people do this but we are in danger of doing the exact same thing to them that we are objecting to. As TJ says people can make strange choices if they wish – many think our choices are strange we must all tolerate each other.
With morality very few thingsa re absolute I dont eat meat I think it is morally wrong it doe snot give me hte right to prevent you eating meat nor does it give you the right to force bacon butties down my kneck. Tolerance

"Many people religious or not have weird beliefs that colour their decisions." Fine.

"Would you insist a catholic have a termination because the foetus is badly damaged? Would you insist a vegetarian eats meat?" Of course not. I don't have any power to insist anything of the sort, and why should I have? What a silly question.

"for personal decisions its a clear part of the decision process." Obviously.

"I think your ideas on this are completely wrong and muddleheaded" So, it's muddleheaded to want to suck every last second out of life because it's the only one we get? Seems completely unmuddled to me.

"I have no idea the basis for you deciding the way you do" See above.

"However its your decision and must be respected." Not at all.

"You need to read up on competency and decision making" Not really.

"People have the right to make stupid decisions" Absolutely.

"and the reasons why they do are irrelevant. " Not at all. Different reasons result in different outcomes and are completely up for discussion, AFAIC.

Are you suggesting that a person should be a complete hypocrite and have "respect" for something that one finds contemptible? Without denying anyone the right to anneal themselves to the despised item, of course.

Perhaps that's what you mean by "respect". In which case we don't have an argument.

Whats that wooshing noise? its the point flying right over Mr Woppits head.

Yes I do think your views are crazy and I have no idea how you can come to the decision you do. That my view from my experience.

No matter how stupid I think your view is however I must and will respect it. Why you have decided that is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that you are competent to make that decision and that you have decided.

Its respecting the decision not the reasons for it – thats the bit you seem to have difficulty with

""You need to read up on competency and decision making" Not really."

You clearly do as you have no understanding of either the law or the ethics on this one. We are talking about personal decisions. People have the right to make them and no one has the right to question them.

This is one of the crucial legal decisions surround this sort of case for example

Re C [1994] 1 WLR 290

The patient was an adult detained in Broadmoor mental hospital. He had gangrene in his left leg and the doctors considered that amputation was necessary to save his life. He refused such treatment. Although he was a paranoid schizophrenic his mental illness did not render him automatically incapable of making a decision about his medical treatment.