A really difficult one this and I am sure one that will have extreme viewpoints but I am interested to see what people think and STW seems a good place to start with a cross section of (cylists) views.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sufferers-lose-landmark-die-battle-131725068.html

I firmly believe this decison is wrong on so many grounds – it’s incredibly cruel to deny anyone this right, the thought of me or one of my loved ones having to suffer like this is frightening. If it was an animal not a human we would “put them down as the humane thing to do”
So we are humane with animals but deny people with a functioning mind and clear desire the opportunity to pass away peacefully? Shame on whoever makes these decisions.

rock and a hard place IMHO. open to *so* much abuse if the floodgates are opened. Short answer – I don’t know. Wife works, or did, in palliative care and I think she’s ambivalent too – it’s all about quality of life for the person, not on the suffering on those close to them – I guess their existence could be ‘eased’ if that involves higher doses of medication, so be it..

Personally I think it madness that you can’t chose when and where you wish to die. We say it is humane to put animals to sleep if they are ill or hurt themselves but we don’t apply the same rules to humans. Doesn’t the word “humane” give a clue. For the life of me I just cant see why we think it is acceptable to stop feeding someone so they starve to death instead of shortening their suffering with drugs.

I just can’t see there being flood of people being killed illegally if the law was changed. Is there a flood of people in Switzerland? Any if there is a flood then change the law back again. Say that 2, 3 or 10 doctors have to approve it before it happens and only when the person is in a fit state of mind. Doctors already make many decisions of life and death, when turning off life support machines so whats the difference.

i mostly agree with woody,

Cannot really think of a reason not to allow it tbh.
We put animals out of their misery without knowing their views and then we ignore a human asking for the same thing.

I often think medicine has advanced to the point where it can prolong death rather than prolong life

The No vote seems to be mainly from people who think as soon as you legally allow people to help their chronically ill/disabled loved ones die with some dignity everyone else will immediately start offing anyone with a slight illness or disability.
Silly.

pretty much word for word what Woody74 said.

The debate would be off to a better start if it was properly titled.

It’s not about the right to die. It’s about the right to allow someone to take a life without being prosecuted for it.

Every sperm is sacred.

geetee1972 – we are just playing with words, I think the two sentences have pretty much the same meaning and it seems to be understood by all so far.

I’m pretty annoyed at the whole attitude to death in this country at the moment due to recent events. I’ve just watched my mum die from terminal cancer, at times in a lot of pain, and was often told by nurses she couldn’t have more painkillers (in this case paracetamol) for another half hour because you have to wait 4 hrs between doses.

Now yes fair enough If i’ve got a headache I’ll wait those four hours accept the reasoning. But for someone who’s whole body, including the liver which could sustain the damage from the paracetamol, is turning against them, it was just insane. Not the nurses fault I realise, but it really seemed unnecessarily cruel.

The best we can still do it seems is to leave someone to konk out from inevitability.

I couldn’t quite believe at times that in the 21st century we will give a dog more dignity than a person, and the person is capable of understanding and making their own decision.

Isn’t it about whether or not the person is actually in a fit mental state to make the decision? If someone is depressed and suicidal, should we kill them? Surely not.

So I think a lot of the hesitation comes from the inability we have to truly know if someone is making a rational decision.

Truly sorry to hear that unklehomered, me losing my aunt in a similar manner when she was practically begging to be put out of her misery has inevitably influenced my point of view.
RealMan we are not talking about depressed/suicidal people but terminally ill people in unimaginable pain who want it to end. Put yourself or a loved one in that position. Beyond my comprehension as to how society can allow it. Although I admit confirming how we know the decision is rational is another point of debate

Beyond my comprehension as to how society can allow it

Fear of death. Even someone elses.

First point lets say we make assissted suicide or the proactive takin of life in this situation how do you propose it be achieved? Im guessing you would say there would need to be a willing volunteer who was a) qualified and b) willing to take that person’s life. What if no one was willing to do it? Are you proposing that we make it a legal requirement that a doctor be prepared to carry out he act? I’m presuming not but you may find that there arent many willing volunteers.

Then out of interest, Do those people who are in favour of having the right to have your life ended by someone else also agree with capital punishment. I know they are not exactly the same thing but they are to some extent ie the state is saying that in certain circumstances it is willing to sanction taking someone else’s life.

My resistance to the idea is based on there being too many unresolvable morale and legal issues. I’m not agains the ideal so much as I am the practicality of having it enshrined in law.

“I am in excrutiating pain and my life is a nightmare with no hope of improvement. It lacks anything that could remotely be described as quality and I wish to end it.”

“No. There’s too many “issues”…

Fairly simple to me. If someone is of sound mind and really wants to die, let them. Just put checks in to make sure they are of sound mind.

Hi geetee1972
Re your first point – many medics are in favour of assisted suicide so I don’t think you will have trouble finding volunteers.
FYI I am against capital punishment.
With regards to the practicality of enshrining it in law I don’t have the legal knowledge to propose the best solution but I’m sure it could be done.
There are no moral issues (to me) based on my previous comments but if there are for you then we will have to agree to disagree. If it was legal that would cover the those issues.

I fail to see how capital punishment and euthanasia are the slightest bit related.

And no, completely opposedto capital punishment.

Then out of interest, Do those people who are in favour of having the right to have your life ended by someone else also agree with capital punishment. I know they are not exactly the same thing but they are to some extent ie the state is saying that in certain circumstances it is willing to sanction taking someone else’s life.

Vast difference in the two. Consent is the key, one is with, one is without. I don’t condone taking someones life without consent.

What if no one was willing to do it? Are you proposing that we make it a legal requirement that a doctor be prepared to carry out he act?

I assume we can use the same moral get outs we do for abortion- do you assume everyone medical qualified wants to be part of that?

I’m presuming not but you may find that there arent many willing volunteers.

I am assuming we wont need many as very few will choose to end their life
Many Dr have probably already given fatal doses of “pain relief” if speaking to Dr friends is anything to go by

Then out of interest, Do those people who are in favour of having the right to have your life ended by someone else also agree with capital punishment. I know they are not exactly the same thing but they are to some extent ie the state is saying that in certain circumstances it is willing to sanction taking someone else’s life.

😕
You are missing the choice element which makes them nothing like each other.
you may as well compare me giving something to someone and someone stealing something as they both end up with me not having the thing.
Of course that is a weak anology but i thought i would keep the theme going 😉

My resistance to the idea is based on there being too many unresolvable morale and legal issues.

You have a problem with the right to choose?
What other areas do you have issues with people choosing what happens to them?

I’m not agains the ideal so much as I am the practicality of having it enshrined in law.

I am not sure what you mean tbh

RealMan we are not talking about depressed/suicidal people but terminally ill people in unimaginable pain who want it to end.

So you’re saying that terminally ill people are never depressed? And that people who want to die aren’t suicidal?

Also, I thought the guy who’d just lost the legal battle was just paralysed. Not terminally ill, or in any physical pain..?

Every sperm is sacred.

The old towel under my bed must be practically as holy as the turin shroud then.

Another sad aspect of the ruling is that some people have a degenerative illness, may be inclined to take ther own lives earlier, while they still can, rather than progressing to a point where they are incapable themselves and would need to rely on someone else to help them. This would shorten what life they have left and would probably cause more stress and suffering for them and their families..

I couldn’t quite believe at times that in the 21st century we will give a dog more dignity than a person, and the person is capable of understanding and making their own decision.

I think this is the crux of the matter, to die with dignity is surely a right for everyone.
The safeguards obviously need to be massive, 2 or 3 doctors at least to agree that it is “unbearable” to continue to live on.

You kill a dog,without it being able to make a choice,in what way is that more dignified than trying to alleviate pain and distress?

Passive euthanasia and to some extent active euthanasia occur daily in palliative care settings daily but it’s done with extreme caution and dignity.
Unfortunately the more profile a case receives the less likely that the medics involved will be capable of doing it.
It’s very common in palliative proactive to withdraw life prolonging medication and administer strong analgesic agents, with the inherent knowledge that they will reduce life expectancy but the sufferer will go comfortably.
It’s unfortunate that such humane practice is technically illegal and the medics involved potentially risk prosecution.
In this unfortunate mans case withdrawal of his ventilators support is all that would be required – passive euthanasia.
I think as long as he was deem to be of sound judgement then he should have every right to have his ventilator switched off. Given we have all heard about this through the media it will never happen.

I think Geetee really hit the nail on the head with his first comment – what people seem to be discussing is not the right to die (Which since the de-criminalisation of suicide we all have….) but rather the right to ask someone else to end our lives. There are many complexities to this such as:
– The possibility that those who made a request to be helped to die changing their mind post loss of capacity to inform others
– The right of medical professionals to not be complicit in the ending of another’s life
– The openness to abuse of any such arrangements by medical professionals, family members, advocates etc… Safeguards will not prevent this happening in all possible cases.
– How this may change wider society in terms of attitudes to the sanctity of life for others
– Decisions regarding capacity, suffering mortars pity of life being made on the basis of financial matters
– The formal compromise of the Hippocratic oath

Thes are only some of the things that need to be considered… Can we honestly say as a society that this has been fully considered from all angles before we make a decision – I think not…

J

Realman – I never said terminally ill people are never depressed and don’t think I alluded to it, you are trying to twist words to justify your view.
Ref the guy who just lost the legal battle I’ll be honest not sure if it’s terminal but even if it’s not, a life of paralysis, pain, unable to look after yourself or a dignified end with the support of your family. Put yourself in his position and tell me you would want to carry on. I doubt it. Even then, if you can choose why shouldn’t he?

hugor +1.If this person is in such pain,then the current legal situation appears to be that alleviation of symptoms is ok,and if that leads to the death of the patient,that is acceptable,however actively seeking the death of a patient is a no-no

It is a complex ethical issue.

To make it legal would require such a complex set of rules that it would almost never apply, or to be completely relaxed to the extent it would rapidly be abused.

Assessing objectively why someone wants to die is impossible. Unless someone can define a validatable way of assessing an individuals situation then the debate will continue.

I feel sorry for the chap. But, and I’ll be potentially controversial here, he’d probably be better off shutting his trap and just getting hold of some stuff that would sort him. It could all be done to look like an accident.

Or – he could make a stronger protest and stop eating. Show that ending it is his ultimate desire, and show that he’s being forced to suffer further by not being allowed to take an overdose.

Actually we don’t have the right to die with dignity – the majority of us will not be in a position to decide the time or method of our death. Perhaps when more of us on this planet are able to live our lives in peace with fair opportunities and in the universal position to be treated with respect – then there might be a time to discuss this? Many people suffer all through their lives for one reason or another but they are often treated very differently when they seek their own chance for dignity, such as living in a country without tyranny, being able to have a decent standard of living if they cannot find a job or access to social care to be able to live in a decent way.

I do wonder sometimes why these cases are brougt,as DrRSwank says,it’s fairly easy to off yourself,and no-one would investigate too deeply.

I feel sorry for the chap. But, and I’ll be potentially controversial here, he’d probably be better off shutting his trap and just getting hold of some stuff that would sort him. It could all be done to look like an accident.

Or – he could make a stronger protest and stop eating. Show that ending it is his ultimate desire, and show that he’s being forced to suffer further by not being allowed to take an overdose.

I do wonder sometimes why these cases are brougt,as DrRSwank says,it’s fairly easy to off yourself,and no-one would investigate too deeply.

You guys do understand that the cases decided today were for people suffering from “locked in syndrome”. In which they are completely paralysed and certainly unable to administer any drug or substance to themselves. How would you suggest a person with such a condition could end their own life ? As they are not suffering from a terminal illness its quite likely that a PM would be performed if they do die suddenly and therefore anybody who might have administered such a drug risks prosecution. I also understand that they are not in significant pain so the active treatment with excess morphine which is widely accepted in palliative care is not a credible solution. They may be able to refuse food, but starving to death is hardly a dignified death – although Ms E’s case earlier this year established a president for medical feeding when the patient wanted to die.

Today’s case was quite likely to fail, as it was just clarifying the existing law – it will take political will to make enable this to happen. I am amazed that given the level of public support there seems to be that there is not more political will. Surely a regulated system with safeguards and protections (which will I accept not be 100% infallible) be better than “back street” euthanasia which seems to be what some people here are encouraging.

Just because something is morally and legally a difficult issue doesn’t mean we should stick our heads in the sand and do nothing. If anything we should do more. There are hundreds of difficult issues that we have dealt with, abortion, dropping a nuke bomb to end ww2, bombing Dresden, stem cell research, test tube babies. ( yes i know some of these are random) They are all difficult but we have made a decision rightly or wrongly. At the moment parliament just seems to be ignoring things.

Even then, if you can choose why shouldn’t he?

Because he might not be in a right state to make that decision.

If one of your friends told you they wanted to die, you’d guess they’re probably quite depressed and need some help. You wouldn’t help them by killing them.

Now this guy was in a crappy situation, and he wanted to die. But was his situation the entire cause of it? Or was he depressed as well? Some might say the depression is a rational response to the situation.

What if Stephen Hawking said he wanted to die? What if he had said it 30 years ago?

Just because you can’t imagine yourself going on in that situation, doesn’t mean he’s making a rational choice.

Just because you dislike his choice does not mean it is irrational or a result of mental illness.

When he cried when he was informed of the decision would you say he was happy?

You cannot compare this man’s situation with a friend wanting to die. it all depends
If you loose your family in a car crash you may wish to die but you may get over it.
He is unlikely to get over “locked in syndrome” or his view that it is a ” living nightmare”
More to the point you dont have the right to tell him he has to carry on because it upsets you to think he might die as it is his choice
Dropping in mental illness and rubbish comparisons [ a friend/Hawkins] clouds the issue as this is a particular case where there is no evidence of any of the things you keep suggesting being applicable in this case
I am sure. as with other things, we would give the mentally ill less rights than the non mentally ill. However he is not mentally ill he is just so unhappy with his “life” that he does not wish to continue
Life, for him, has a quality threshold that “locked in” does not achieve

Realman, a lot of if’s there, most I feel irrelevant to the debate (Stephen Hawkings?)
He is in a correct state of mind to make that decison. His family back him. Sorry I cannot see the rationale in your argument (but hey we are all different)
I’m sure he probably is depressed – I think I would be but that’s irrelevant in this case. The debate is not if you are depressed or not, it’s whether in the correct circumstances (or in this case a specific set of circumstances) you should have the right to die.

I ask you again – put yourself or a loved one in that position. Does your viewpoint still stand?

I’m following Tony Nicklinson on facebook and frankly what the family do on a day to day basis is staggering. The discussions they must have had to come to this point place most of mine around my life in the position of being trivial.

Its a disappointing decision but one that is understandable in the current legal framework, so the process moves on, the family don’t give in that easily.

If you are of the mind to do so and agree with the principle, there is a petition here to register your support…

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tony-nicklinson-s-right-to-die-change-the-law

Lets hope this STW thread stays rational and doesn’t go off on one or get locked…

Strong believer in Euthanasia