Assisted Dying, for or against?

[whelk]

 

If you are conscious and you want to live, obviously a doctor isn't going to recommend euthanasia.

 

Shipman? Once they realise they get a bonus for each one could be as popular as prescribing statins and Prozac if you just say you are fat and unhappy.

[Lighthouse]

Shipman? Once they realise they get a bonus for each one could be as popular as prescribing statins and Prozac if you just say you are fat and unhappy.

 

You're saying someone's case is going to be reviewed by 3 completely separate Harold Shipmans, who will then give a patient a lethal injection, kicking and screaming against their will?

 

Who has said doctors will be paid a bonus for euthanising patients? You've just made that up.

 

May I ask in which area of medicine you specialise, just out of interest?

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

The thing is, it wont be a case of 'this guy is really ill, assisted suicide might be an option.' It will be more a case of 'we've exhausted every possible avenue of medical treatment. We're at a dead end now, let's refer this case to a judge'. I don't think the actual disease leading up to that decision is particularly relevant.

 

I don't think the logistics are all that hard. You can opt into a system, same as being an organ donor. I'd be quite happy to register for a system whereby if 2 doctors and a judge are unanimous I'm not coming back, they can choose to end it.

 

I've tried many times to type what i'm thinking but I just can't get the ideas straight or explain myself as well as i'd want to so I think i'll bow out of the discussion. I do think people should have the choice but I think each circumstance needs to be taken on its own merits and don't see how a single piece of legislation can cover it, especially without hampering that element of choice.

[buctootim]

Yeah bang in fox hunting, housing refugees. Maybe we could have a list of 10 each year. Will depend on the tabloid stories of the day though judging by the U turn seen recently on the basis of emotion stirred

 

Not sure if you're being sarky or not. On the outside chance you aren't, of course its a relevant issue for a referendum in a way which most other issues aren't. Death will affect all of us directly eventually and in the meantime affects us as friends and family die. Everyone has personal knowledge and experience which equips them with an informed opinion.

[Jillyanne]

Government are losing a hell of a lot of money on cigs, keeping people alive paying for meds is a fab substitute!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Not sure if you're being sarky or not. On the outside chance you aren't, of course its a relevant issue for a referendum in a way which most other issues aren't. Death will affect all of us directly eventually and in the meantime affects us as friends and family die. Everyone has personal knowledge and experience which equips them with an informed opinion.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

A majority of MP's in Parliament may have decided that they know better than those who elect them, I for one however I'm not so sure that they do. A recent opinion poll on this very subject showed that a overwhelming 82% of those asked were in favour of Lord Falconers' proposal.

 

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/press-release/poll-assisted-dying/

 

I don't suppose for one moment that I'm only person on here with direct personal experience of this difficult issue. Based on that, I well know that what often happens as a person nears the end of their life is that treatments (such as anti-biotics) are withdrawn to speed their passing. At the other extreme, sometimes so much morphine is administered that your loved-one soon becomes more or less 'out of it' in effect - something akin to a form of living death if you will. This can prove to be a 'merciful release' for everyone involved.

 

Not being the religious type I don't see some huge moral divide here between withdrawing all treatment or alternatively massively over-administering drugs, or on the other hand simply providing some quick and effective means for a person to end their own life painlessly - if that be their wish of course.

[simo]

For

[Manuel]

In the news again today after a Welsh lady died at Dignitas. Two daughters may face questioning over "assisted suicide" but say they have no regrets.

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-mother-ended-life-dignitas-10410426

 

What I don't get is why this lady, and same for most other cases, needs "assistance". If she can operate a computer, which nearly every one can do, even with disabilities, then she can arrange herself suitable disabled transport to the airport, without disclosing to the taxi why she's going if necessary, and again once in switzerland. Maybe she could even pay for personal assistance for the day, with minimal information to the carer to protect them if she wants.

 

All costs money of course, but even if she asked her family or friends for money to help her with her illness without disclosing exactly what for then I think you'd be hard pushed to start any legal proceedings.

 

Even if the family knew why she was going and even if they wanted to travel with her, I don't see that under these circumstances they would fall foul of any assisting the suicide laws as every action would have been organised and initiated by the person with the illness.

 

If I've got all that right then I don't see why we'd need a change in the law.

[buctootim]

If I've got all that right then I don't see why we'd need a change in the law.

 

Because under the current law a dying woman has to fundraise using the pity of strangers to travel to Switzerland and her daughters are at risk of criminal charges. Its striking that 96% of the people responding to thr poll after the Welsh story want a change in thre law.

[Manuel]

If it's just about the money, I'd have thought even with donations from family/friends "assisting someone with their illness", they wouldn't need to be furnished with all the explicit details and therefore wouldn't be implicated. Maybe that's the point though, that she shouldn't need to act undercover in all this and should be able to be honest about her intentions.

[buctootim]

If it's just about the money, I'd have thought even with donations from family/friends "assisting someone with their illness", they wouldn't need to be furnished with all the explicit details and therefore wouldn't be implicated. Maybe that's the point though, that she shouldn't need to act undercover in all this and should be able to be honest about her intentions.

 

I just think its better done at home on the NHS, clearly and openly . The current situation is a legal fudge of smoke and mirrors anyway. Very few people actually die of cancer, they die of a heroin overdose which suppresses their breathing. Legally this is a side effect of pain control - you have to keep raising the dose to effectively control the pain, until eventually they drift away. Its a humane, gentle way out administered by doctors with the patient's interests at heart. The assisted suicide problems largely come with patients who have unbearable terminal illnesses with symptoms which dont justiify painkilling opiates so some may die unpleasant and avoidable deaths.

Edited 9 November, 2015 by buctootim