Assisted suicide - yea or nay?

[silverfox]

Nay. Thin edge of the wedge. If I was dotty Aunt Doris and worth a penny or two I'd be very wary of my nieces and nephews.

[macroban]

A quick and painless murder by the younger generation would be far better than the morphine driver breaking down, or the dosage of diamorphine not being increased to match increase in pain.

[silverfox]

I'm not suggesting murder, rather the danger of undue influence or pressure being applied by relatives and interested parties (for various reasons)leading to a person feeling they are a burden. Some may profit from this.

The quality of life argument is relative and can be insulting to handicapped people or people who have suffered bad injuries.

If a person of rational mind decides they want to end their life (if that's not a contradiction) in most cases they are able to do this unassisted. Why is there a need to legalise assisted suicide?

[Keef]

I agree that there are risks involved regarding greedy relatives, and this must be thought about.

However, if someone wants to die, who the hell are we to say they shouldn't be able to?

[silverfox]

Interesting article on this in today's Times by Matthew Parris who is pro ending his own life but against legalising assisted suicide

"I oppose legalising assisted suicide

I will take my death into my own hands. The State has no business giving me the authority to die ? or the authority to live

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6735530.ece

[LegalEagle-ish]

The thought of being trapped in abody that is so delapidated that you can't physically end your own life seems like the stuff of nightmares.

Why are we so keen on sending our young men into battle with other people's young men, but we are squeamish about allowing people to kill themselves when they think they have had enough and want to end their life?

Is it because most of the people who make the laws are rich, greedy bastards who wouldn't trust their own relatives when it was their turn to consider the question?

[RosieH]

I say yea, yea and thrice yea.

My body, my life, they are mine to do with as I will. Should I ever reach such a point of physical incapacitation, I would be glad to know that, in that regard, my wishes could still be carried out, even were I not physically able to carry them out myself.

[Keef]

I think the reason that the powers that be, are against it, is down to religion. This is one of those areas where organised religion is forcing a moral outlook on everyone.

[PeckhamRose]

Keef, indeed.

So a YES for me then. (Sorry, don't do out of date politics language.)

[Moos]

Yea for me too.

The 'slippery slope' argument can be countered with well-thought-out laws and parameters. Just because in a completely unregulated situation abuse could occur doesn't mean that we shouldn't make an attempt to create a well-regulated set of laws that allows assisted suicide under certain circumstances.

For instance, if someone is diagnosed with a terminal disease I see no reason why they should not choose (if they wish) to end their life earlier than the disease chooses, with dignity and without suffering.

I'm not saying that those are the only circumstances under which I personally would agree with assisted suicide, but it seems to me a clear-cut example.

[SteveT]

Doctors in the nhs have been killing people since its inception, provided the doctors were 'active' and I hope I will find one when my time is due.

I have seen many incapacitated patients some were in iron lungs (total body enclosure with the exception of the head) although most were attached to ventilators.

When a person gets a disease like motor neurones it's something like a creeping death where the patient eventually becomes more paralysed until he/she drowns because they cannot cough, you really need an 'active' doctor to give you a good send off.

The alternative is to slap off to Switzerland before you get to that stage, with a trip fraught with anxiety until your arrival, and pay your grand or two then receive your injection.

It could just as easily be bought in a 'bye-bye pack' via the chemist or your local GP, and the sooner the better in my opinion.

[Jeremy]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a person of rational mind decides they want to

> end their life (if that's not a contradiction) in

> most cases they are able to do this unassisted.

> Why is there a need to legalise assisted suicide?

How about people who are paralysed? Or people with conditions which they know will deteriorate - who want to make sure that when they are no longer of sound mind and/or body, they will be able to die a peaceful and dignified death??

Arguments against legalising assisted suicide just seem incredibly weak to me. I am sure it is only a matter of "when" - not "if" - it becomes legal, in years to come it will seem incredible that this ridiculous law ever existed!

[silverfox]

Thankfully Professor Stephen Hawkins hasn't taken that route Steve T and instead of whinging about the cards life has dealt him has got on with it and made invaluable contributions to scientific thought. And I bet he ould tell you a thing or two about quality of life.

My thin end of the wedge reservations aren't confined to the terminally ill wishing for release from unbearable suffering. My worry is within a short time it will become 'expected' for people (mainly elderly) who are judged by some spurious criteria to be no longer productive members of society to top themselves for some misguided utilitarian view of the good of the majority/society.

[Keef]

Stephen Hawkins is hardly typical though is he.

[Jeremy]

Silverfox, I really think you're getting the issues confused. Of course some people who are paralysed are able to live a life which is in some way fulfilling. The issue is not about "whinging about the cards life has dealt", as you so tacfully put it. It is about personal choice.

Revisiting your earlier post again:

If a person of rational mind decides they want to end their life (if that's not a contradiction) in most cases they are able to do this unassisted.

What would be your suggested method? Do you not think that a painless lethal injection would be rather more dignified?

[silverfox]

No, he's unusual*. However, the danger of this debate is quoting extreme examples of terminal illness to support the legalisation of assisted suicide. I can see how putting a loved one out of their misery can be an act of loving compassion.

However, suicide is a selfish act and can affect those left behind. All sorts of complications can arise, families may be divided on the issue. The fact is suicide is not in itself illegal. Assisting suicide is. By legalising assisted suicide we will be crossing a boundary that may have far reaching consequences as to the value of life.

(*Apologies it's Hawkin without the 'S', I should have checked)

[Keef]

The claim that suicide is selfish, is a well used one. However, why should we be anything other than selfish with our own mortality? Yes I'd think of my wife and child, but I like to think they'd understand my decision and want me to be free of pain.

[silverfox]

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm trying to say it's not just about relief from terminal illness or pain. Allow me to quote from the Matthew Parris article referred to above as he has a way with words.

"People should be able to choose. Obviously. And if they choose the end but seek help with the means, they should be able to. Obviously. End of argument.

...I would expect myself to support legal reform without reservation, yet find I cannot. Not quite...

It is of course outrageous that the friends, partners or even family doctors of suffering and terminally ill people seeking suicide should ever be successfully prosecuted for helping them in good faith. My reservation is this: an Assisted Suicide Act could be the beginning of a creep towards the state regulation of death. We who respect the individual?s right to die should retain a small but insistent libertarian doubt about the bringing of order to a corner of human behaviour where, at present, something closer to anarchy reigns.

The road not to go down is Scotland?s. The Scottish Parliament is considering a Bill drafted by the MSP Margo MacDonald. This requires anyone considering an assisted suicide to sign a prescribed legal declaration while still mentally fit. If they later go ahead, their mental state will then have to be assessed first in a formal psychiatric examination to ensure that they are not simply depressed. There will inevitably be a requirement for official certification; and for those who might assist in the suicide to be themselves officially approved for the task.

The Scottish mind seems to have a leaning towards dirigism and codification. This summer another Scot, Lord Falconer of Thoroton (the former Lord Chancellor) put down an amendment to an English measure, the Coroners and Criminal Justice Bill. It involved certification ?by two registered medical practitioners, independent of each other? that a patient was ?terminally ill and has the capacity to make a declaration? which was itself to be independently witnessed, the witnesses being neither close friends nor relations."

My point is, assuming a law is enacted along these lines, it would not be long before amendments changed the requirement for terminal illness to be a necessary condition. Mental illness could be included, Alzheimer's disease for example and so on. We could sleep-walk our way into a brave new world of 'Soylent Green' euthanasia.

[charliecharlie]

Matthew P makes some good points in his article, the key one being the hypothetical danger of the state have the legal right to decide who should die and who should live (1984 scenarios spring to mind here... megaphones, 'your time is up" etc.)

However thinking back to the Diane Petty case in 2002

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/diane-pretty-loses-case-while-miss-b-dies-with-dignity-658602.html

very grey, very messy and I am sure totally devastating for her husband and children...

As Matthew P points out, it is clear that the law needs to have a better definition of the terms ?good faith?, ?all reasonable steps?, ?unbearable? and ?terminal? so that those involved in 'assisting' are given a less painful ride though the courts...

I am absolutely pro voluntary euthanasia. In cases of terminal illness it seems appropriate and 'kind' to help those who wish to end their lives... if I any member of my family was terminally ill and of sound mind I would support them through assisted suicide...

On a personal level I feel perfectly at one with the idea and hope, that by the time I may need to consider this as an option, there will be a a framework in place that better protects those who may feel able to assist me!

[Keef]

There will be a programme about this on Thursday morning at 9am on Radio 4.

Inside the Ethics Committee

[SteveT]

When I had a bout of severe pain (kidney stones) had someone offered me the 'termination tablet' I would have willingly swallowed it, without question.

Life with endless pain is no life for me, you cannot think a rational thought whilst engulfed in violent pain.

[Marmora Man]

Assisted suicide - unequivocal YES.

To counter the Matthew Parris this is not about the state regulation of death it's about deregulating the state's control of death. The simplest way forward to be to decriminalise the existing legislation that forbids assisted suicide and put nothing in its place.

The individuals involved might want to make their own arrangements to ensure there was no question of coercion or manslaughter / murder but trying to legislate for all eventualities will simply result in more confusion and contradictions.

[Huguenot]

And libertarianism as usual is a recipe for anarchy...

"The individuals involved might want to make their own arrangements to ensure there was no question of coercion or manslaughter / murder"

And how do you propose everyone can do that eh?

Private security guards? Lawyers?

You're really struggling with your imagination if you can't predict the enormous emotional pressure people can exert on each other to get what they want.

[TillieTrotter]

Do you know that the word euthanasia means "good death". It was thought a very noble way to die pre christianity. I say yes.

[Huguenot]

Tillie, it was also regarded perfectly reasonable to slaughter the ill and the infirm, and put your enemies in big copper bulls before cooking them alive. Perhaps we could pick up with crucifiction again?

Nobody would challenge the idea of a 'good death', but it demonstrates remarkable naivety to imagine that this will be the only conclusion.

We don't accept capital punishment because it's not widely accepted that we should pay a price in the death of innocents to indulge ourselves upon the guilty.

How many people are we prepared to accept being murdered through assisted suicide to support those for whom it's a valid and reasonable course of action?

Or do you, as with MM, think that everyone can look after themselves?