Question Assisted Suicide?

[rynnor]

What do people think of the plans for panels who you could take your case to die to if you have a terminal illness?

Its not going as far as some would wish and it wouldnt help you if your mind deteriorates before you get before the panel but it sounds workable without too much scope for murder?

 

[Moriath]

shouldnt be a panel should be a single certified person who can determine if you have a terminal illness.

Once thats determined then the choice should be yours.

 

[Nate]

I saw that program the other year on ch4 where this guys going around helping people die on his own. It was pretty disturbing. I don't think one person should have that much power.

Reverend Death it was called, can't seem to find the video

 

[Nate]

Found it YouTube- Reverend Death Part1

 

[Moriath]

i dont mean 1 person i mean a GP or such like doctor .. so one person for an individual and they put their reports into an organisation and they say if they believe or not and then give the go ahead to prescribe over dose stuff

 

[Scouse]

Can't wait for it to be sorted, then I can start selling cyanide pills to depressed people...










*yes, this is a serious post, believe it or not

 

[rynnor]

Can't wait for it to be sorted, then I can start selling cyanide pills to depressed people...










*yes, this is a serious post, believe it or not

Nah - overdose on a recreational drug is the method of choice - go with a smile

Plus cyanide really hurts and isnt instant.

 

[adams901]

Is this based on the recent news about Terry Pratchett?

Author Pratchett wants to test assisted suicide law - Yahoo! News

 

[nath]

Nah - overdose on a recreational drug is the method of choice - go with a smile

It's not without its risks though is it? You run the risk of brain damage or some such and that'll scupper your plans of trying again.

 

[rynnor]

Is this based on the recent news about Terry Pratchett?

Author Pratchett wants to test assisted suicide law - Yahoo! News

Partly - its been building for years though - theres been a number of high profile cases on the issues involved and it finally seems to be gaining political support.

I'm all for it personally - theres nothing sacred about a life that consists of constant pain without hope.

 

[cHodAX]

I totally support this move, if an individual wants to go on thier own terms then surely that is a fundamental human right?

 

[Ctuchik]

shouldnt be a panel should be a single certified person who can determine if you have a terminal illness.

isnt that what doctors and hospitals are for?

have THEM do it because thats what they do anyway.

 

[old.user4556]

My Devil's Advocate says that having assisted suicide could be open to soooo much abuse.

 

[Moriath]

isnt that what doctors and hospitals are for?

have THEM do it because thats what they do anyway.

yeah that sort of idea but they cant do it atm and it goes against the hypocratic oath so that would have to be sorted too

 

[Raven]

The Daily Mash - OPPONENTS OF ASSISTED SUICIDE STILL CONVINCED IT'S ANY OF THEIR BUSINESS

Point being, is it any of of your business if someone doesn't want to eat and shit through a tube for the next 2 years?

 

[Will]

I totally support this move, if an individual wants to go on thier own terms then surely that is a fundamental human right?

My Devil's Advocate says that having assisted suicide could be open to soooo much abuse.

I agree with the above comments. When someone has a terminal disease with no mental health issues, that could be made pretty clear cut. When there are mental health issues, thats a much grayer area.

I'm also unsure how I'd feel being involved in the process. Its easy to rationalise it as better than slow suffering. But when I may have to administer the injection, thats a different matter.

 

[Larossa]

We treat our pets better; when the vet says they have no hope of getting better we do not want them to suffer any more and ask the vet to put them to sleep - admittedly they usually do not have any possessions that we might be interested in but the principle is still valid.

I watched my grandma turn into a drooling idiot (pretty much) who didn't recognise her nearest and dearest and who would have been horrified if she had known what would have become of her; the entire family funded her stay in a home until she eventually died.

 

[Scouse]

My Devil's Advocate says that having assisted suicide could be open to soooo much abuse.

Sorta what I was hinting at

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Nah - overdose on a recreational drug is the method of choice - go with a smile

Plus cyanide really hurts and isnt instant.

Yes because ODing is a pleasurable, pain free experience.

 

[Scouse]

We treat our pets better

This I agree with.

Previously (i.e. before capitalism got it's dirty claws in too deep) a much higher proportion of whole families would live within touching distance of each other until they died.

Granny would get help from great grandchildren until they day they died. Having large families was (evolutionarily speaking) a handy system that had developed over time which looked after the olds.

Nowadays when people have completed their 'economically useful' cycle we consign them to a dustbin. The family tends to live more distant and, lets face it, how many of us would choose to look after mum until she croaks? (Especially when Oz is calling for beach life and s3x3h girls. It's difficult to help mum change lightbulbs from 12000 miles away).

I think that an official assisted suicide law would result in a lot of people topping themselves when, in different circumstances, they perhaps would not.

My current thinking is that we should either:

A) Leave the law 'as is' but quietly instruct judges to interpret it much more leniently. Or;

B) Completely rework care for the elderly so it gives them comfort, dignity, self respect and real help (at the expense of everyone). Then, only when that work is complete, rework the law so those who choose to end their lives can do so in a manner of their choosing with the involvement of whomever they wish...

Fair??

 

[Embattle]

It should be allowed but strict controls would have to be put in place.

As for method, there was a program about the death penalty on not so long ago that was discussing the whole issue and the best method and it showed a painless method to do with air pressure or something.

 

[Bugz]

The views and visions of whether death is good or bad, justified or not justified, means to an end or just an easy escape are all issues the whole population are divided on.

As such I just can't see a plausible answer that pleases everyone and it's not an argument I could ever justify either way I think; knowing the extreme circumstances each side of the coin can bring.

 

[Scouse]

As such I just can't see a plausible answer that pleases everyone

There isn't one. But I suggested the two above as possible ways forward as they're positive actions...

 

[rynnor]

A) Leave the law 'as is' but quietly instruct judges to interpret it much more leniently. Or;

B) Completely rework care for the elderly so it gives them comfort, dignity, self respect and real help (at the expense of everyone). Then, only when that work is complete, rework the law so those who choose to end their lives can do so in a manner of their choosing with the involvement of whomever they wish...

Fair??

A is pretty much the same as changing the law and B is too expensive to do now and in the future will only ever get far more expensive.

B is just a price we pay for breaking up the nuclear family - many other cultures would look in horror on how we treat old people but it all stems from easy divorces and a selfish culture built around the individual.

Its also good to remember that there are real limits to pain relief - the idea of a universal good death is a nonsense - if you saw a man on a battlefield in mortal agony would you leave him to it or put him out of his misery?

 

[Scouse]

So, what you're saying about B, rynnor, is that we're selfish so fuck em?

It's not as if we couldn't do it. So what if it's expensive? Last I heard the NHS was expensive, but if you've ever broken anything you pretty much love 'em and would have no problem stumping up the cash.

 

[Embattle]

I tend to think you are mixing age with terminal illness.

 

[rynnor]

So, what you're saying about B, rynnor, is that we're selfish so fuck em?

I'm saying our grandparents generation made certain decisions and this is the logical outcome - lots of people hitting old age on their own.

You cant fix that by government intervention - we as a society need to take stock and decide if there isnt maybe something to this nuclear family idea.

 

[DaGaffer]

B) Completely rework care for the elderly so it gives them comfort, dignity, self respect and real help (at the expense of everyone). Then, only when that work is complete, rework the law so those who choose to end their lives can do so in a manner of their choosing with the involvement of whomever they wish...

Fair??

Fair yes, but can we afford it? No. And we're already running into the interesting scenario where there will be more than enough old 'uns to simply vote themselves a better quality of life, but not enough active taxpayers to support it. I think the rather more depressing scenario is that as little as 20 years from now, "normal" retirement age will be a thing of the past; you'll work until you drop and employers will be happy to take you.

I was reading an article in the Guardian the other day about European demographics and from a financial perspective its a nightmare. From an environmental angle its rather different though; looks like we're approaching the upper end of the growth curve and will start to fall back naturally in the next century or so; even women in places like Bangladesh are having fewer babies.

 

[Yoni]

Im not sure I could assist someone to commit suicide, in the same way I could never put an animal out of its misery myself...

What would happen for example if this was allowed and a nurse / doctor was told they have to administer an injection and it was fundamentally against their own beliefs?

 

[rynnor]

What would happen for example if this was allowed and a nurse / doctor was told they have to administer an injection and it was fundamentally against their own beliefs?

You couldnt force anyone to do it but I thought it was mostly relatives who want the chance to assist without being prosecuted.