Right to Die

[MYstIC G]

I know this is another BBC News thread but this just popped up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774

He's got the right to have his case heard. Do you guys think it will make any difference or are they just stringing him along?

How do you guys feel about the right to choose when to end your own existence?

 

[Tom]

It's his life and therefore his decision.

However, he has no right to expect others to end his life.

 

[Scouse]

I think he should be able to do it and if he's unable to do so yet has someone willing to help then they should be immune from prosecution.

However, if we get this legal "right to die" bollocks it will definitely lead to a slippery slope which will lead to what right now we consider unspeakable horrors happenning regularly in the future.



People used to be aghast at the word "fuck" on the telly, in the same way that people would right now be aghast at the idea of an insurance company sanctioning the forcible death of someone they deem too expensive to keep alive. But it'll happen in the next 100 years and these are the first small steps towards it.

 

[soze]

Have a legal document like the DNR which you have to sign when you are healthy. Stating if you standard of living drops below X then you wish to have your life terminated. Have 3 doctors look over the Medical Facts nothing emotional and if 2 agree you will never live a normal life (to your standard) then let them pull the plug IMO. Your life your call. Why treat a dog or Horse with more compassion than a Human.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think he should be able to do it and if he's unable to do so yet has someone willing to help then they should be immune from prosecution.

However, if we get this legal "right to die" bollocks it will definitely lead to a slippery slope which will lead to what right now we consider unspeakable horrors happenning regularly in the future.

People used to be aghast at the word "fuck" on the telly, in the same way that people would right now be aghast at the idea of an insurance company sanctioning the forcible death of someone they deem too expensive to keep alive. But it'll happen in the next 100 years and these are the first small steps towards it.

I don't think this necessarily leads to the "slippery slope" you fear. The key issue is self-determination. This guy is "locked-in" physically but he does have the ability to communicate, so he can decide if he wants to die; rather different from a third-party deciding on his behalf. In his case, if a bit of common sense prevailed, another person doesn't even have to kill him directly; his comms panel could be wired up for lethal injection and the decsion and act could be entirely his. Under current laws anyone who built the apparatus to do this would be arrested on accessory charges, but that's a lesser issue for the legal system to alter. If this man can be given the dignity of some control over his own life, even if its just the decision to end it, society should be prepared to help him.

 

[mycenae]

What Dagaffer says is true IMO. And its how the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland operates. There was a brilliant documentary about it a while back, presented by Terry Pratchett. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with their approach and their ethos, though this is, of course, a very individual opinion. In my line of work, I have been priviledged enough to meet numerous children and families who have voiced to me that if an option such as Dignitas was more readily available in the UK, then some very ill individuals could be saved from a lot of pain and suffering, and their families too.

Obviously, the subject is a complete minefield in terms of morality, ethics, right and wrong etc etc.......and something I'm not going to get into here. But basically, the way I see it, its his life, and he is compus mentus enough to determine whether the standard of living available to him is acceptable. If he deems its not, then its his choice what to do about it.

 

[Embattle]

As long as he/she is of sound mind then they should have the right to decide their own fate as they would a pets, naturally the additional benefit is more questionable in terms of ultimately saving NHS resources at the same time.

 

[Raven]

ofc he should have the right to die, anyone should have the right to die if they want to. The idea that anyone should be forced to live on in misery because of someone else's moral choice is absurd.

 

[Calaen]

I think fact that medically we have come so far yet the law hasn't changed needs to be looked at.

I couldn't imagine what the guy is going through, nor what his family are going through. And I wouldn't want people close to me wasting their lives having to do everything for me. I'd rather be dead!

 

[rynnor]

I dont think we want official executioners but surely you can just expose these people up in the mountains and let nature take its course - no human agency required at the death?

 

[Cyradix]

Don't see what the problem is.
They do it over here in Belgium. Not with a insta lethal injection but as a "fade out" kind of deal.
Had both a friend and a family member with cancer go out that way.
They put you to sleep and you basically go deeper and deeper until your body just stops. Took 1-2 days...

 

[rynnor]

Don't see what the problem is.
They do it over here in Belgium. Not with a insta lethal injection but as a "fade out" kind of deal.
Had both a friend and a family member with cancer go out that way.
They put you to sleep and you basically go deeper and deeper until your body just stops. Took 1-2 days...

Exposures quicker and doesnt require any drugs or equipment or anyone to administer said drugs.

The body just shuts down - you go to sleep - coma - death.