JTaylor

What do you think?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16410118

richiewong

I'd happily help kill half the people that frequent SNet nowadays

boxst

I am still somewhat disturbed having watched the person die on Terry Pratchett's program on the subject. The person seemed so, well, alive and then he passed away.

What distrubed me apart from actually watching someone die voluntarily was that he could certainly have lived on for many months or years, but didn't want to as he knew it would get to the stage where he couldn't travel / be allowed to make the decision.

Anyway, I think it should be an option but I do not know how you can ever safeguard from the malicious family members.

Leslie

I think it is wrong and also if that sort of thing was allowed, its not such a big step to euthanasia being instituted by the State for the incurably ill or even at an age to be decided in order to save the government money!

Les

ScoobySteve69

iTrader: (13)

Would the people against this feel the same if they were ravaged my an aggressive cancer which made every living minute, hell? In so much pain and disorientated they didn`t even recognise family members? Knowing their loved ones had to watch them wither away and deal with constant pain (no matter what pain killers they were on) It`s not nice to go through....for either party, believe me. I think not.

Spoon

Excellent news. Do what you can when you can, without dropping anybody else in the cart.

It shouldn't just be for the terminally ill with a judged 12 months to live either.

Leslie

As I said!

Les

JTaylor

I trust you meant 'one' - I'm rather enjoying the absurd spectacle at the moment.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Surely by exception is ok though Les as there will always be a small minority of cases where it's the right thing to do? I'm happy to leave it as is where a request goes through the courts albeit that making it easier (read cheaper) to do so would be good.

TX.

Spoon

No, James, I was referring to you.

dpb

crazy idea

David Lock

I agree completely. And I would add "if you had to care for a partner or child in this state".

It may be less so now but certainly it was sometimes the case that a consultant or family doctor would give a terminally suffering patient a little "extra" something to "help them sleep well". Usually family knew this and were grateful for an end to the pain.

Of course this no questions asked attitude carries risks but I think they would be worth it.

dl

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Sadly two words spring to mind......Harold Shipman

The BMA is totally against it and don't think their attitude will change anytime soon and the idea is DIW (excuse the pun). Quite right too IMHO, appropriate palliative / end of life care is the way to go, even if that means using large doses of opiates..

Shaun

specialx

I can see what your saying but if you have pet with the same kind of illness it seems totally normal and accepted that putting them to sleep is the best thing for them.

Do we care more for animals than we do humans?

Just a thought.

Ads

GlesgaKiss

It's a cosmic leap to state euthanasia, Leslie.

For one, a person can choose to kill themselves whenever they want if they're able. The state has never had the right to do that and it probably never will. The power has to remain with the individual - and, indeed, this is giving more power back to the individual: the power over their own decisions and fate.

It's simply allowing an explicit wish to be fulfilled. The person would end their own life if they could, but they obviously aren't able. You've got to ask yourself what the difference is between the two. Okay, another person is doing it; but it's by request from a person who would obviously have to be of 'sound' mind.

Again, what constitutes a sound mind could be debated endlessly. When someone's facing a terminal illness, they could arguably never again attain what some would call a 'sound' mind. But, again, they could easily make the decision themselves despite that. Some obviously do, but there are many more who would like to, if it could be done peacefully.

I've seen a cancer sufferer die when they were having trouble swallowing even liquids (started as throat cancer and spread). The last few weeks were not dignified. And I think (although I'm not sure) that the person would rather have gone peacefully surrounded by family before the real discomfort started. They were going to die in that bed anyway, so why not a few weeks earlier at their explicit request?

No doubt some people weigh in their mind the option of killing themselves against just doing nothing. But obviously, again, everything about it would be extremely distressing and undignified, and it would exclude and hurt family members.

So the option of choosing to go peacefully, in a situation where everyone knows what's going on (they can accept it), and they can say everything they want to say, then seems less upsetting in comparison.

GlesgaKiss

Again, a key difference: no-one else, other than the patient themselves, would be able to make that decision.

Unfortunately, animals don't get to make that choice. My first hamster might have liked to live, even with piles. But who gives a f*ck. I just chucked it over the garden fence and got another one.

john banks

You can tell it hasn't been thought through by medics if the main condition is that you aren't expected to live 12 months. Most medics know you just can't tell, some patients with apparently the same prognostic data can live 2 weeks and others 2 years. I can usually tell when someone is in their last few hours/days, but I can't often be more precise than that.

al-Megrahi would have been eligible, but he has lived longer. His expected 3 months has turned into 2 1/2 years so far. See the trouble with predicting?

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

.......John, as far as I am aware the BMA refused to co-operate and didn't take part in the consultation and there was no rubust medic input. The nearest they got was an ex BMA chairman.

I was going to mention the Lockerbie bomber as well but you beat me to it.

Shaun

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

This is one of those things one hopes they never have to have first hand experience of. There are obvious dangers in legalising assisted suicide.... and that's fundamentally what it is! However, there are also ethical and moral considerations to take into account in just ruling it out.

I can't see the medical profession coming around to this any time soon: it's hard to argue that it doesn't violate the hippocratic oath in its current form: "First, do no harm"

What I personally don't want to see is:

1) Policy being based on the imposition of theist or antitheist views. If someone believes that assisted suicide is a mortal sin and would not want to be associated with it themselves, that's fair enough and their views should be respected. However, a person who does not hold such views should not be contstrained by an ideology they do not ascribe any value to, nor subscribe to.

2) Policy being dreamed up by politicans rather than the medical and legal professions. We need to ensure that vulnerable people are not exploited, as distasteful as the idea is, no doubt some poor souls would be put under duress by unscrupulous individuals.

3) The process of assisted suicide being deemed as automatically acceptable. It shoud be a considered expection in the application of the law made prospectively NOT retrospectively after the event!

4) Nothing being done and a situation where a family member or friend is criminalised and potentially locked up for making a heartbreaking personal sacrifice to help a person of sound mind, who would otherwise suffer a painful and undignified death, end their suffering.

5) If its not obvious from the above, I'm totally against any kind of state scanctioned euthanasia.

I'm fairly convinced that some kind of arrangement can be made that respects the right of the individual whilst safeguarding them from abuse.

JTaylor

Well, I'm no further on with my reasoning on this. Like the legality or otherwise of drugs, there seems to be no cogent position - no moral absolute to act as an anchor. I see this through both the lens of an objective libertarian and can support the right to die whilst simultaneously harbouring a deeply hidden, subjective instinct that says, irrespective of the conditions, taking one's life resonates negatively with the Universe. Cognitive dissonance: Painful.

john banks

It does see odd that we euthanase animals, and perhaps even consider it cruel if we prolong their suffering. We could argue, what is different about humans that we feel the reverse. Personally if it was legal I would support it and assist it, but also am a great believer in excellent palliative care.

JTaylor

Humans are conscious of consciousness.

john banks

Can you expand on the implications? Could we say that the human can make an informed choice whereas the animal relies on its human carer to choose?

Leslie

I agree it would be a cosmic leap at this instant, but you should never underestimate the power of a government to institute such action over a period of time for its own purposes whether the people wanted it or not.

The step being advocated now is a very big move into that direction believe me!

Les

JTaylor

Kind of, 'though I'd re-phrase the statement thus: The human is capable of making an informed choice....

We need to first define capable and informed; having done this, if we're satisfied that the individual is both capable and informed (who decides?), we then have to be absolutely confident that there are no interior processes left for the subject to complete before passing. Now as far as I know, no human is able to observe the subject's conscious state in the run up to and at the moment of the heart ceasing to beat. This is the unknown which we cannot claim to understand. One's position on this seems to be dependent on whether one is philosophically objective or subjective (materialist or idealist, theist or atheist and so on). So as far as I can tell, if one endeavours to keep a foot in both camps (as any good thinker ought to) the only logical position to hold as to whether suicide is or is not consequential beyond the observable is to say that we don't know. High stakes.

john banks

Thanks. I don't know what to say except sway towards libertarianism and lack of government control, which would make me generally "pro-choice" in matters such as this. I compare it to some degree to my feelings re abortion where it is deeply regrettable that contraceptive failure has occurred, but when people are so cavalier about it, it isn't a surprise. In some ways it is more serious as I think I would value the born higher than the unborn, but I'm not sure why. On the other hand it is less serious because hopefully one life is not being improved by destroying another, but more a life is being destroyed to reduce suffering, and assisted.

Suicide feels the wrong term for it, but I don't know whether assisted dying or euthanasia is best either. "Suicide" conjures up a completely different dynamic, but again I'm not sure why. Maybe I'm making a judgement on those who commit suicide due to personality disorder vs depression vs discovered crime vs terminal illness vs dementia.

High stakes indeed.

JTaylor

About 6 weeks before my grandfather passed he alluded toward his struggle with his 93 year-old faith. After some weighing-up his deeply Cornish vowels and clipped consonants formed words I really didn't want to hear. Consider that at the time I was a militant anti-theist and would tell anyone that'd listen how stupid and deluded they were for believing in God. Out they came: "Do you really believe I'll meet up with my Em', Boy"? Em' was his beloved wife of 50 years. I instinctively told Gramps what he wanted to hear and did so with even more sincerity and conviction than when I'm asked by the enemy if her bottom looks big in her new dress.

Gramps was preparing to meet his maker; riddled with pain as the cancer spread throughout his well-warn body, his condition and my capacity to cope would deteriorate with every visit. The days and weeks dragged on and, I confess, I asked the heroic St. Lukes' sister whether there was anything that could be done to quicken my grandfather's passing. If I could have ended his suffering there and then, I think I would have.

Three or so weeks later my grandfather, my mother and I were together in the softly-lit care-home room in which Gramps had been placed for his final days. He'd not been 'conscious' for 48 hrs. I sat at his bedside holding his hand, my mother sat in the far corner of the room at the foot of the bed. His breathing became slower and then less regular and Mum and I exchanged knowing glances. And then he squeezed my hand and said "love you James....love you Norma". He took his final, noble breath a few moments later. I thank God I wasn't presented with the opportunity to have ended his suffering as he would not have been able to say those words and Mum and I would not have heard them. There's no accounting for the unknown.

john banks

The last few hours of a human life managed in a palliative care situation are similarly virtually unconscious, but the noises that loved ones make when breathing tend to be upsetting despite the best efforts of medication. I often wonder what those last few hours actually accomplish and when the syringe driver doses are increased enough to reduce distress and pain it would seem a good point to end it. The "double effect" does often hasten things and I know a lot of people are pushed on their way by a generous dose.