Assisted Suicide

[Lamp]

Just heard the following story on the radio

BBC NEWS | Health | MS woman wins right-to-die review

Do you agree that assisted suicide (properly regulated & licensed) should be legalised ?

(I think its already legalised in Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, & the State of Oregon)

 

[Helme]

Depends on the illness, but generally yes.

 

[Wonk]

euthanasia? (sp?). I'd say yes.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If it ain't malused, it it's controlled, if it's not "free for all", why not?

Painless option to those who want to kill themselves anyway. It's not like you can stop them.

 

[Lamp]

It's not like you can stop them.

You can, actually. Well according to these clinics anyway:

...doctors repeatedly psycho-analyze, check over, and ask patients about their certainty to make such a life-changing decision on their own. Patients must not have the ability to commit suicide themselves and must suffer from an illness that causes intolerable pain.

But I take your point that if a person really wants to kill themselves, there are ways.

The woman in the UK news has asked for a judicial review whether her husband will face criminal charges if he helps her kill herself by going to one of these clinics.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But I take your point that if a person really wants to kill themselves, there are ways.

Yeah, more so. Where there's no will to live, there's a way. To be "brute" about it.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

As someone who's got this as a possible option in the future, I'd have to say yes. Illnesses cannot always be beaten back into submission, eventually they do win. In some cases its months of pain and slow deterioration, feeling guilty as hell in the process as others tend to you (who will see you slowly wither away into a pain filled husk of flesh).

You should be allowed to choose to end your life if you are critically ill, and those who wish to aid you should be free from prosecution. Their should be guards in place I'll admit, but beyond that it IS the choice of the person wishing to die to receive such aid.

 

[- English -]

think theres a bit more to it than a yes and no answer

 

[old.Tohtori]

think theres a bit more to it than a yes and no answer

Does there have to be?

As said here, if it's regulated, only used by the ones suffering etc and who can make their own decicion about it in a concious state.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

think theres a bit more to it than a yes and no answer

Damn right there is, but there will never be just a simple answer to suit everyone. Make do with your own views, and judge from that standpoint, thats the best you can do.

 

[- English -]

Damn right there is, but there will never be just a simple answer to suit everyone. Make do with your own views, and judge from that standpoint, thats the best you can do.

yup, its a complicated matter tbh, quite confusing to think about it ;p

 

[Lamp]

think theres a bit more to it than a yes and no answer

There are a huge number of legal, moral, ethical, and other issues wrapped up. But at the end of the day, it does come down to a simple yes or no. On that basis, votes are taken in parliaments, and laws are passed (or not as the case may be).

 

[Castus]

If a queue develops can i ask they allow Man Utd fans to jump it.

 

[- English -]

There are a huge number of legal, moral, ethical, and other issues wrapped up. But at the end of the day, it does come down to a simple yes or no. On that basis, votes are taken in parliaments, and laws are passed (or not as the case may be).

not really, this is why i find it confusing. It could be if someone has such a problem then yes, otherwise no. There has to be alot of legil stuff to determine what could be seen as a wish for suicide, is there chances for them to get better, how bad is their problem and stuff. So i dont think it is just a yes or no answer to the original question

 

[Lamp]

You're missing my point English.

At the end of a hypothetical day the House of Commons will be voting on yes or no.

Now you can discuss it for 100 years. But at some point it does come down to a simple yes or no.

 

[Jeremiah]

not really, this is why i find it confusing. It could be if someone has such a problem then yes, otherwise no. There has to be alot of legil stuff to determine what could be seen as a wish for suicide, is there chances for them to get better, how bad is their problem and stuff. So i dont think it is just a yes or no answer to the original question

I'm pretty sure a lot of that stuff is already considered, and any legal law will be abstract enough to cover the terminal and chronically ill conditions. I think there would be a lot less grey areas than you would think, as the decisions wouldn't be down to the suffer but rather doctors and the courts.

For example, family members are often asked if they wish to turn off life support machines when the patient is in an unrecoverable state. I really don't think theres a huge jump between someone whose life is only being maintained by machine, and someone who is in such chronic pain they are sedated to the point of vegetation.

I think Lamp covered it well, regulated and supervised. I can't see how that could be abused?

 

[crispy]

Yes in the case where the patient is going to die soon anyways, no reason to keep on tormenting a human for week just because we think its amoral to put them out of their misery..

 

[AngelHeal]

nope,
draw a line somewhere..

 

[soze]

If i did not know my family and was only kept alive by machines and drugs i would want to end rather than being kept alive for years to waste away. Is there a DNR order here in the UK i think in america you can sign a document that says if your brain damaged or in a coma that you do not want to be saved if you die.

Why do we treat a dieing dog with more dignity than a human if a dog was crapping himself and was not eating would we keep him alive untill he wasted away or put him down? Why treat an animal better than a human.

 

[Jeremiah]

We do have DNR in the UK. It can be requested by the patient and family, but also by doctors.

It's a good point you make about dogs, although it could be argued that a human life is more valuable than that of an animal and therefore not as straightforward. Killing a dog is not considered murder, and afaik the main reason why Euthanasia in the UK is illegal is because the person aiding the person would be considered responsible for their death.

Even if its the case that the patient could self-administer the drugs to kill themselves, the doctor prescribing them would be held accountable. Its a weird set of laws I believe

 

[Gorbachioo]

Yes in the case where the patient is going to die soon anyways, no reason to keep on tormenting a human for week just because we think its amoral to put them out of their misery..

But if hes paralyzed from the neck down (= unable to kill himself) and has nothing to do for the next 50 years but staring at the ceiling then should he have the right to kill himself?

Ofcourse? ;O

No one has the power to decide for someone else should he live or die. If someone wants to die but is unable to do it by himself then society should take care of it.

Now ofcourse there has to be some testing etc just to make sure that its not some temporary depression or something like that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But if hes paralyzed from the neck down (= unable to kill himself) and has nothing to do for the next 50 years but staring at the ceiling then should he have the right to kill himself?

Ofcourse? ;O

No one has the power to decide for someone else should he live or die. If someone wants to die but is unable to do it by himself then society should take care of it.

Now ofcourse there has to be some testing etc just to make sure that its not some temporary depression or something like that.

We get more ifs in that:

- At same time you're saying(if i'm not mistaken) that a guy who's paralyzed neck down for 50 eyars shouldn't have the choice to kill himself, and that he should be the one deciding if he wants to kill himself?

- And, testing wouldn't prove anything. Someone can always fool them to take the final trip. Not to mention, i think someone who has something that would give the right to euthanasia, would be pretty durn depressed.

 

[Jeremiah]

We get more ifs in that:

- At same time you're saying(if i'm not mistaken) that a guy who's paralyzed neck down for 50 eyars shouldn't have the choice to kill himself, and that he should be the one deciding if he wants to kill himself?

No, he is saying that he should have the choice only. Sort of like "Well he is the one who has to put up with the 50 years of looking at a wall, so he should be the one to choose if he wants to or not".

- And, testing wouldn't prove anything. Someone can always fool them to take the final trip. Not to mention, i think someone who has something that would give the right to euthanasia, would be pretty durn depressed.

I'd agree with you. I can't see how testing would work, it would need to be a partnership between the medical staff and the judicial system =)

 

[crispy]

But if hes paralyzed from the neck down (= unable to kill himself) and has nothing to do for the next 50 years but staring at the ceiling then should he have the right to kill himself?

Ofcourse? ;O

No one has the power to decide for someone else should he live or die. If someone wants to die but is unable to do it by himself then society should take care of it.

Now ofcourse there has to be some testing etc just to make sure that its not some temporary depression or something like that.

In such a case you obviously flip a coin every time its his/her birthday

 

[Howley]

longish post and dont think it came out as well as i wanted

after reading the bbc report i thought about it for a few mins and briefly discussed it and i noticed a few of my points were covered already, but i think id still like to mention them coz its how i feel too...
(And in this post im only responding towards the bbc report)

For example, family members are often asked if they wish to turn off life support machines when the patient is in an unrecoverable state.

Why do we treat a dieing dog with more dignity than a human if a dog was crapping himself and was not eating would we keep him alive untill he wasted away or put him down? Why treat an animal better than a human.

- If a beloved pet is hit by a car and he is unable to walk anymore, had problems bleeding and crying from the pain often wouldnt u put 'it' down to be humane?
I personally think its inhumane for a High Court judge (who clearly doesnt personally know either individual) to say you can be prosecuted for going to a foreign country and carry out an "assisted-suicide" to stop the pain of a loved one who does not have any chance of getting better!

Mrs Purdy has stated:
- that if her husband was to be prosecuted then she wouldnt go
- if he is safe then she can wait until she is ready to go
- she wants to wait to the last moment to go, when its unbearable being alive
- diagnosed in March 1995, she can no longer walk and is losing strength in her upper body.

this to me seems like a person who likes her life so far and loves the people around her because she doesnt just want to do it right away but seems to want to spend more time with them and "wait to the last moment to go" and still cares about what happens to her husband after she is gone so isnt being selfish imo.
The point about the pet and how human life is more valuable, we easily make the decision for our pet and of course humans are more valuable but she is clearly saying what she wants and doesnt want to feel the pain! but may be forced to do so while her body slowly shuts down in pain...

ok im not from the UK and i dont live there so i cant say it should be legalized there, but i think stopping her from traveling and doing it and then prosecuting her husband for assisting-suicide is wrong!

 

[megadave]

If someone is so bad that they feel that life isnt worth the amount of suffering they experience then why should we be able to stop them ?

 

[crispy]

Hey... couldnt we get rid of alot of emo kids this way btw?

 

[soze]

Allot of time doctors know when someone is not going to make a recovery i think it should work that in that situation a person can apply to a judge to terminate life support / give an overdose. The judge should then be able to call on a Doctor that has never met the paitent or the family and they should examine them and make a reccomendation as to if they can life with any quality of life. Would be very hard to get it working but i think worth it in the end.

 

[Helme]

Hey... couldnt we get rid of alot of emo kids this way btw?

There is a difference between "the pain is so real my life isn't worth living anymore....lets listen to Bullet for my Valentine again" and chronic pain that is unbearable unless controlled with very high dozes of drugs, with no signs of improvement - ever(ie. MS).

Besides, most emos seems to handle the suicide part themself.. or maybe not, seems to be more talk and no action :<

 

[Aoami]

Turn the machines off asap. No point keeping people alive when they don't to be, they're just taking up valueable beds and doctors time.