Assisted Dying Proposal

[aintforever]

After watching my Nan and Dad suffer in their last days I have to say I agree with this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/09/assisted-dying-bill-kim-leadbeater-right-to-die

Interesting that the doctor in the article said that prior to the Shipman case doctors would be able to help people die quicker. Also interesting that it says Oregon law has stayed unchanged for 40 years, Swiss law unaltered for 80 years so, if that's true, the idea that mission creep is inevitable might be nonsense. 

One thing is for sure, I'm much more scared of a protracted painful death than I am of the idea that, when Im old and frail, my daughter will try to wheel me down the clinic to get her inheritance.

[badgerx16]

Didn't stop Bertrand Dawson helping King George V on his way, allegedly to ensure that the timing would allow The Times to break the news of the King's death.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Didn't stop Bertrand Dawson helping King George V on his way, allegedly to ensure that the timing would allow The Times to break the news of the King's death.

Dawson later arrested attacking the rest of the royal family with a sword ahead of a Punch magazine deadline.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

The Beeb have just asked George Carey if God has told him he's in the right as a supporter of assisted dying.

[buctootim]

On 07/10/2024 at 12:43, Gloucester Saint said:

I’m personally a bit uncomfortable, I wonder whether the existing right to cease treatment/DNR could be adapted rather than a brand new bill? I sadly had to deal with this issue in the family a few years back and it is highly triggering just discussing this. But too important to put away in a cupboard.

---

      

Edited Saturday at 19:43 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

Good on Wes if he does vote against. 

[Lighthouse]

That would be Wes Streeting the practicing Christian, who has a religious book commanding everyone to preserve life at all costs. "Duty to die," my arse, that’s completely unfounded nonsense.

[Tamesaint]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

That would be Wes Streeting the practicing Christian, who has a religious book commanding everyone to preserve life at all costs. "Duty to die," my arse, that’s completely unfounded nonsense.

Its not nonsense and your insistence that it is demonstrates an inability on your behalf to fully comprehend the issues around this highly contentious issue. 

I am surprised as you normally come over as being sensible and open minded. 

 

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Its not nonsense and your insistence that it is demonstrates an inability on your behalf to fully comprehend the issues around this highly contentious issue. 

I am surprised as you normally come over as being sensible and open minded. 

A law allowing people who have been medically diagnosed as terminally ill to end there suffering in no way whatsoever implies a 'duty to die' for someone who is elderly but otherwise healthy. That makes no more sense than saying straight people will feel an obligation to have a same sex marriage, just because that's been legalised.

[whelk]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

That would be Wes Streeting the practicing Christian, who has a religious book commanding everyone to preserve life at all costs. "Duty to die," my arse, that’s completely unfounded nonsense.

Christianity is the bedrock of this country and result of many of its laws that you no doubt take for granted. Ignore the Christian viewpoint though eh

Edited Sunday at 06:00 by whelk

[aintforever]

58 minutes ago, whelk said:

Christianity is the bedrock of this country and result of many of its laws that you no doubt take for granted. Ignore the Christian viewpoint though eh

You shouldn’t base any law on a bunch of fairytales written centuries ago.

[whelk]

12 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You shouldn’t base any law on a bunch of fairytales written centuries ago.

Why is it wrong to kill your neighbour?

[Sheaf Saint]

15 minutes ago, whelk said:

Why is it wrong to kill your neighbour?

The same reason it's wrong to plant two different types of seed in a field or boil a baby goat in its mother's milk, if you're using the bible as a guide.

Most people, however, are perfectly capable of recognising why murdering people is wrong, without the need for belief in fictional deities.

[benjii]

10 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Its not nonsense and your insistence that it is demonstrates an inability on your behalf to fully comprehend the issues around this highly contentious issue. 

I am surprised as you normally come over as being sensible and open minded. 

 

No he doesn't!

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The same reason it's wrong to plant two different types of seed in a field or boil a baby goat in its mother's milk, if you're using the bible as a guide.

Most people, however, are perfectly capable of recognising why murdering people is wrong, without the need for belief in fictional deities.

What do you use to boil your baby goats in?

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

No he doesn't!

Yes he does. It's a noted departure from his usual posting style and he can't seem to understand the implications from this sort of law and he keeps repeating the fallacy that this is simply allowing terminally ill people to end their lives a tiny bit earlier. It's surprised me to be honest. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

What do you use to boil your baby goats in?

A cauldron ?

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Christianity is the bedrock of this country and result of many of its laws that you no doubt take for granted. Ignore the Christian viewpoint though eh

Jesus was Jewish.

[Lighthouse]

52 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes he does. It's a noted departure from his usual posting style and he can't seem to understand the implications from this sort of law and he keeps repeating the fallacy that this is simply allowing terminally ill people to end their lives a tiny bit earlier. It's surprised me to be honest. 

Most of the arguments you’ve put forward, along with those shared by Carr and TGT, have a large missing link, which nobody has yet put forward a credible argument for. There’s no explanation of how this law is going to lead to otherwise healthy elderly people, and those in wheelchairs, being coerced into euthanasia against their will. The examples you gave from other countries amount to little more than isolated cases of unprofessional and rude staff.

There is a large chasm between some admin clerk suggesting euthanasia because they can’t be bothered installing a wheelchair ramp and a doctor actually signing off on such a ridiculous proposal. That’s not even mentioning the fact that a wheelchair user would obviously not consent to such a proposal.

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Most of the arguments you’ve put forward, along with those shared by Carr and TGT, have a large missing link, which nobody has yet put forward a credible argument for. There’s no explanation of how this law is going to lead to otherwise healthy elderly people, and those in wheelchairs, being coerced into euthanasia against their will. The examples you gave from other countries amount to little more than isolated cases of unprofessional and rude staff.

There is a large chasm between some admin clerk suggesting euthanasia because they can’t be bothered installing a wheelchair ramp and a doctor actually signing off on such a ridiculous proposal. That’s not even mentioning the fact that a wheelchair user would obviously not consent to such a proposal.

I can only conclude that you simply didn't read at least half of the examples I gave if you're describing them as simply cases of unprofessional or rude staff. You're also failing to understand-again- that's it's not forcing people to die against their will, it's about the person themselves feeling coerced to do so or to consent so as not to be a burden of which there are many examples where similar laws have been introduced. Did you ever end up watching the documentary with some semblance of an open mind? 

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Most of the arguments you’ve put forward, along with those shared by Carr and TGT, have a large missing link, which nobody has yet put forward a credible argument for. There’s no explanation of how this law is going to lead to otherwise healthy elderly people, and those in wheelchairs, being coerced into euthanasia against their will. The examples you gave from other countries amount to little more than isolated cases of unprofessional and rude staff.

There is a large chasm between some admin clerk suggesting euthanasia because they can’t be bothered installing a wheelchair ramp and a doctor actually signing off on such a ridiculous proposal. That’s not even mentioning the fact that a wheelchair user would obviously not consent to such a proposal.

It's obvious based on common sense and the reality of people.

Unwell/old people can feel that they are a burden, and be made to feel that they are. I suspect most of us have experienced that, and I certainly have. And, as sad as it is to stay, inheritance only crystallises after death. 

Voluntary euthanasia will lead to involuntary/coerced euthanasia. That's obvious. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

It's obvious based on common sense and the reality of people.

Unwell/old people can feel that they are a burden, and be made to feel that they are. I suspect most of us have experienced that, and I certainly have. And, as sad as it is to stay, inheritance only crystallises after death. 

Voluntary euthanasia will lead to involuntary/coerced euthanasia. That's obvious. 

It's also not an outlandish thing to suppose that some relatives will encourage either subtley or overtly someone to hurry up and die so that they can claim their inheritance. Lighthouse has laughed at this scenario as if it's something ridiculous. I accept it would be a minority of cases but it absolutely will happen and it's an entirely plausible and valid concern to have with human nature being what it is. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's also not an outlandish thing to suppose that some relatives will encourage either subtley or overtly someone to hurry up and die so that they can claim their inheritance. Lighthouse has laughed at this scenario as if it's something ridiculous. I accept it would be a minority of cases but it absolutely will happen and it's an entirely plausible and valid concern to have with human nature being what it is. 

It's not outlandish - it's a sad reality unfortunately. Much as I admire Lighthouse's faith in people to do the right thing by their loved ones, and wish that were the reality, that's just not how it always is in the real world. As much as it saddens me that people can suffer unnecessarily at the end of their lives (pets have their misery ended, for example), there's just too much scope for this to he abused to make me comfortable with it. 

[Lighthouse]

Still absolutely no explanation of why two doctors would sign off and carry out euthanasia on the very, very small number of otherwise healthy elderly people, all of whose children are literal psychopaths. In any such case, there’s nothing to prevent anyone committing illegal suicide. If you’re genuinely convinced you need to off yourself so your kids can have a trip to the Maldives, you can stick your head in the oven or swallow a bottle of paracetamol. You can do that any time you like, there’s no doctors signature required at all.

As for that documentary, I got about ten minutes into it and got fed up. It was a bunch of people who very, very, very clearly don’t want to commit suicide, trying to argue that the law applied to them. The irony is that all their examples of people saying, "oh I’d just kill myself if I was like you," didn’t make them want to do it at all, so it’s completely contrary to the point that they’re trying to make.

[Tamesaint]

26 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Still absolutely no explanation of why two doctors would sign off and carry out euthanasia on the very, very small number of otherwise healthy elderly people, all of whose children are literal psychopaths. In any such case, there’s nothing to prevent anyone committing illegal suicide. If you’re genuinely convinced you need to off yourself so your kids can have a trip to the Maldives, you can stick your head in the oven or swallow a bottle of paracetamol. You can do that any time you like, there’s no doctors signature required at all.

As for that documentary, I got about ten minutes into it and got fed up. It was a bunch of people who very, very, very clearly don’t want to commit suicide, trying to argue that the law applied to them. The irony is that all their examples of people saying, "oh I’d just kill myself if I was like you," didn’t make them want to do it at all, so it’s completely contrary to the point that they’re trying to make.

A pity that you didn't have a sufficiently open mind to watch the whole documentary . Clearly you have never been close enough to  disabled people to understand their way of thinking. 

 

 

[aintforever]

11 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

A pity that you didn't have a sufficiently open mind to watch the whole documentary . Clearly you have never been close enough to  disabled people to understand their way of thinking. 

 

 

I’m not sure what people’s disabilities has to do with it if the law only covers people given a terminal diagnosis.

[Tamesaint]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I’m not sure what people’s disabilities has to do with it if the law only covers people given a terminal diagnosis.

In countries such as Canada, where assisted dying is allowed, the scope of the legislation has been widened since its  first introduction to include people without terminal illnesses. Disabled people and older people now come under its remit. 

Proponents of assisted dying say that would never happen here, there would be safeguards, we wouldn't allow it, blah blah blah. They said that in Canada as well. 

There is an interesting documentary on bbc iplayer by the disabled actress Liz Carr (silent witness) which covers this angle. Well worth watching (despite Lighthouse' s opinion) if you want more information. 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I’m not sure what people’s disabilities has to do with it if the law only covers people given a terminal diagnosis.

Read this thread as that point has been covered a few times. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

In countries such as Canada, where assisted dying is allowed, the scope of the legislation has been widened since its  first introduction to include people without terminal illnesses. Disabled people and older people now come under its remit. 

Proponents of assisted dying say that would never happen here, there would be safeguards, we wouldn't allow it, blah blah blah. They said that in Canada as well. 

There is an interesting documentary on bbc iplayer by the disabled actress Liz Carr (silent witness) which covers this angle. Well worth watching (despite Lighthouse' s opinion) if you want more information. 

Yep. The only way to avoid the perils of a slippery slope is to not stand on it. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Still absolutely no explanation of why two doctors would sign off and carry out euthanasia on the very, very small number of otherwise healthy elderly people, all of whose children are literal psychopaths. In any such case, there’s nothing to prevent anyone committing illegal suicide. If you’re genuinely convinced you need to off yourself so your kids can have a trip to the Maldives, you can stick your head in the oven or swallow a bottle of paracetamol. You can do that any time you like, there’s no doctors signature required at all.

As for that documentary, I got about ten minutes into it and got fed up. It was a bunch of people who very, very, very clearly don’t want to commit suicide, trying to argue that the law applied to them. The irony is that all their examples of people saying, "oh I’d just kill myself if I was like you," didn’t make them want to do it at all, so it’s completely contrary to the point that they’re trying to make.

Wow. That's all. 

[aintforever]

15 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

In countries such as Canada, where assisted dying is allowed, the scope of the legislation has been widened since its  first introduction to include people without terminal illnesses. Disabled people and older people now come under its remit. 

Proponents of assisted dying say that would never happen here, there would be safeguards, we wouldn't allow it, blah blah blah. They said that in Canada as well. 

There is an interesting documentary on bbc iplayer by the disabled actress Liz Carr (silent witness) which covers this angle. Well worth watching (despite Lighthouse' s opinion) if you want more information. 

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not allow it, Swiss law hasn’t changed for something like 80 years so there is no reason why we would have to change it.

Not allowing a good law just because you think some democratically elected government might change it to a law you don’t agree with some time in the future is nonsense IMO. 

Give people who are terminally ill the choice to die without suffering, in my opinion it is inhumane to force people to die long drawn out painful deaths. Are you happy to let people slowly suffocate to death vomiting up their own shit when they could go out painlessly and quickly?

[egg]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not allow it, Swiss law hasn’t changed for something like 80 years so there is no reason why we would have to change it.

Not allowing a good law just because you think some democratically elected government might change it to a law you don’t agree with some time in the future is nonsense IMO. 

Give people who are terminally ill the choice to die without suffering, in my opinion it is inhumane to force people to die long drawn out painful deaths. Are you happy to let people slowly suffocate to death vomiting up their own shit when they could go out painlessly and quickly?

That would be a valid point for a good law. Helping people to die, imo, is not a good law. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It's obvious based on common sense and the reality of people.

Unwell/old people can feel that they are a burden, and be made to feel that they are. I suspect most of us have experienced that, and I certainly have. And, as sad as it is to stay, inheritance only crystallises after death. 

Voluntary euthanasia will lead to involuntary/coerced euthanasia. That's obvious. 

Absolutely right. Anyone would do anything for their kids, including die for them. It’s not unreasonable to assume someone in a care home burning through their kids inheritance, would be temped to use this option. 

[Tamesaint]

19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not allow it, Swiss law hasn’t changed for something like 80 years so there is no reason why we would have to change it.

Not allowing a good law just because you think some democratically elected government might change it to a law you don’t agree with some time in the future is nonsense IMO. 

Give people who are terminally ill the choice to die without suffering, in my opinion it is inhumane to force people to die long drawn out painful deaths. Are you happy to let people slowly suffocate to death vomiting up their own shit when they could go out painlessly and quickly?

Apparently last year 40 Britons went to die at Dignitas in Switzerland. Only 20 of these would have been covered by the proposals contained in the proposed legislation. 

If the proposed legislation was to be passed, I am sure that there would be immediate calls for it to be widened to include other people - such as the other 20 who would have  missed out. 

[aintforever]

43 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Apparently last year 40 Britons went to die at Dignitas in Switzerland. Only 20 of these would have been covered by the proposals contained in the proposed legislation. 

If the proposed legislation was to be passed, I am sure that there would be immediate calls for it to be widened to include other people - such as the other 20 who would have  missed out. 

There would be calls for it to widen, there would be calls for it to be abolished, not sure what your point is. As I said, if the Swiss law can remain unchanged then there is no reason why ours can’t. If the law is so bad why do other countries choose to widen the scope?

If a future government decides to change in either direction it then that is their right. 

Edited Sunday at 13:54 by aintforever

[egg]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

There would be calls for it to widen, there would be calls for it to be abolished, not sure what your point is. As I said, if the Swiss law can remain unchanged then there is no reason why ours can’t. If the law is so bad why do other countries choose to widen the scope?

If a future government decides to change in either direction it then that is their right. 

The point is a simple one. If you start with a narrow group of people who can do this, that group gets wider. Your suggestion that the law could be repealed after coming in ain't a good point. Simply, don't start it. 

[aintforever]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is a simple one. If you start with a narrow group of people who can do this, that group gets wider. 

Doesn’t have to. Surely a government would only widen the scope if the law was actually working.

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Doesn’t have to. Surely a government would only widen the scope if the law was actually working.

It depends what your definition of working is and what your criteria for success is. Canada's assisted dying law is certainly working in the eyes of many. Increasing numbers are dying at any rate. 

[egg]

43 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Doesn’t have to. Surely a government would only widen the scope if the law was actually working.

If there's a law to widen, they can widen it.  The safest way is to have nothing to widen.

It's a difficult subject though is this, and you either support or oppose it. I'd hate to be an MP voting for this because you'll never know the conscience of your constituents, and will get pelted whatever way you go. 

For me it's a discussion we don't need to be having. 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Yep. The only way to avoid the perils of a slippery slope is to not stand on it. 

The exact same argument that was used against same sex marriage being legalised. "It’s a slippery slope, it’ll lead to people marrying 10 year olds and horses."

2 hours ago, egg said:

Wow. That's all. 

‘Wow’ is not an argument.

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Absolutely right. Anyone would do anything for their kids, including die for them. It’s not unreasonable to assume someone in a care home burning through their kids inheritance, would be temped to use this option. 

Absolute nonsense. When people say they would die for their kids, they mean, they’d push them out of the way of an oncoming lorry, or risk their lives to rescue them from a burning building. They are NOT going to choose suicide so their kids can have a new BMW and a trip to the Maldives, it’s a ludicrous argument and you know it.

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

The exact same argument that was used against same sex marriage being legalised. "It’s a slippery slope, it’ll lead to people marrying 10 year olds and horses."

‘Wow’ is not an argument.

Absolute nonsense. When people say they would die for their kids, they mean, they’d push them out of the way of an oncoming lorry, or risk their lives to rescue them from a burning building. They are NOT going to choose suicide so their kids can have a new BMW and a trip to the Maldives, it’s a ludicrous argument and you know it.

What an absolutely bizarre leap of logic. Where is the evidence that legalisibg same sex marriage will lead to marrying 10 year olds and horses? How is this related in any way? 

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What an absolutely bizarre leap of logic. Where is the evidence that legalisibg same sex marriage will lead to marrying 10 year olds and horses? How is this related in any way? 

There's absolutely no evidence, that's my point. It was hyperbole stirred up by some of those opposed to its legalisation, the idea that something ridiculous and immoral must 'come next'. Not everything is a slippery slope, a law can be just that and stand on its own morals. We can legalise euthanasia for the terminally ill and that can be it, without leading to unregulated extermination of people in wheelchairs and those holding back a juicy inheritance, for no medical reason.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

For me it's a discussion we don't need to be having. 

That’s just bollocks. Whatever your views, it is a subject that needs debating in Parliament.

I get the obvious concerns but if someone is given an imminent terminal diagnosis and are suffering unbearable pain then it is inhumane to deprive them the choice of going without suffering.

Edited Sunday at 16:17 by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

There's absolutely no evidence, that's my point. It was hyperbole stirred up by some of those opposed to its legalisation, the idea that something ridiculous and immoral must 'come next'. Not everything is a slippery slope, a law can be just that and stand on its own morals. We can legalise euthanasia for the terminally ill and that can be it, without leading to unregulated extermination of people in wheelchairs and those holding back a juicy inheritance, for no medical reason.

Right but we know that the risk of expansion of the law isn't just hyperbole because there are a number of examples of it happening. So your example of gay marriage was a silly one. 

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right but we know that the risk of expansion of the law isn't just hyperbole because there are a number of examples of it happening. So your example of gay marriage was a silly one. 

Why would a government expand the law if they didn’t think it was a good one that stopped a lot of unnecessary suffering?

Edited Sunday at 16:24 by aintforever

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

The exact same argument that was used against same sex marriage being legalised. "It’s a slippery slope, it’ll lead to people marrying 10 year olds and horses."

‘Wow’ is not an argument.

Absolute nonsense. When people say they would die for their kids, they mean, they’d push them out of the way of an oncoming lorry, or risk their lives to rescue them from a burning building. They are NOT going to choose suicide so their kids can have a new BMW and a trip to the Maldives, it’s a ludicrous argument and you know it.

First highlighted point. That, with respect, is a daft thing to say. The issues are entirely different. Marriage is between people, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Except you. 

The 2nd point highlights your naivety on this. It'll happen. You also completely ignore how people who are a burden feel about that, and how they are or could be made to feel. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

They are NOT going to choose suicide so their kids can have a new BMW and a trip to the Maldives, it’s a ludicrous argument and you know it.

It’s not about Mercedes & trips to the Maldives. Ludicrous to think it is. 2 people close to me died early, my mate at 55 & sister in law at 60. Both had horrendous illnesses but both died taking some comfort in the fact they were leaving a start for their kids. My mate left his 15 & 13 year old with money so they could buy a house at 21 (the age they inherited). I don’t know the people you hang with, but I don’t know any of our friends that wouldn’t give up 2 or 3 years of their life ( and a horrendous 2 years at that) to give that sort of security for their kids. 
 

A lot of people who do commit suicide do so because mentally they feel a burden on their family and that their family would be better off without them. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Why would a government expand the law if they didn’t think it was a good one that stopped a lot of unnecessary suffering?

Because unnecessary suffering is subjective. 

Also because of things like this which apparently are simply examples of rude or unprofessional staff according to Lighthouse:

In The New Atlantis, Alexander Raikin described the case of Rosina Kamis, who had fibromyalgia and chronic leukemia, along with other mental and physical illnesses. She presented these symptoms to the MAID assessors and her death was approved. Meanwhile, she wrote in a note evidently meant for those to whom she had granted power of attorney: “Please keep all this secret while I am still alive because … the suffering I experience is mental suffering, not physical. I think if more people cared about me, I might be able to handle the suffering caused by my physical illnesses alone.” She was put to death on September 26, 2021, via a lethal injection, at the age of 41.

 

A young woman who survived an ISIS bombing chose euthanasia rather than live with the trauma, according to a report.

Shanti De Corte was a 17-year-old student traveling with her classmates at Brussels Airport when ISIS terrorists detonated a bomb. The March 2016 blast, along with two others set off by the group at a Brussels subway station, killed 32 people and left more than 300 injured.

De Corte was not physically injured in the attack, but endured years of panic attacks and depression afterward, the Mirror reported.

She tried to kill herself twice, in 2018 and 2020, and posted regularly on social media about her struggles.

De Corte, then 23, chose to be euthanized earlier this year, which is legal in Belgium. She died on May 7 after two psychiatrists signed off on her request.

Suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease at 41, Sean Tagert required 24-hour care, but British Columbia only provided 16-hour assistance. Paying caretakers for the remaining eight hours cost Tagert CA$264 per day. Health authorities did offer to move Tagert to an institution, but its location was far from the young son who was clearly his father’s prime reason for living, as Tagert described such a separation as a “death sentence”. The man managed to raise CA$16,000 to invest in medical equipment that would allow him to remain at home, but the funds were insufficient. So instead he applied for euthanasia. The end

At the age of 61, Alan Nichols had a history of depression and was hospitalised as a suicide risk in 2019 — something of an irony, as in due course the hospital staff, according to his family, was altogether too helpful in facilitating the patient’s application for euthanasia. That application was accepted, even though the only health condition it cited as so intolerable that Nichols wanted to die was “hearing loss”. After Nichols was put to death, his family objected that the man was not suffering unbearably, had been refusing to take his medication, and wouldn’t use the cochlear implant that helped him hear. But no medical personnel had ever contacted his relatives, out of respect for patient confidentiality.

 

Edited Sunday at 17:56 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s not about Mercedes & trips to the Maldives. Ludicrous to think it is. 2 people close to me died early, my mate at 55 & sister in law at 60. Both had horrendous illnesses but both died taking some comfort in the fact they were leaving a start for their kids. My mate left his 15 & 13 year old with money so they could buy a house at 21 (the age they inherited). I don’t know the people you hang with, but I don’t know any of our friends that wouldn’t give up 2 or 3 years of their life ( and a horrendous 2 years at that) to give that sort of security for their kids. 
 

A lot of people who do commit suicide do so because mentally they feel a burden on their family and that their family would be better off without them. 

That’s a completely erroneous example of what’s going on here. Your two friends had no choice in the matter, so it has no bearing on this discussion. It’s one thing to take comfort in the fact that you’re leaving something behind for your children, when you’re terminally ill and know you’re about to die regardless. It’s really quite something else for someone who’s generally speaking healthy but getting on a bit to want to die so that their children can have money.

You say you don’t know what kind of people I hang with, well I’ll tell you; people who would rather their loved ones were alive than have a bit more money. Your last sentence doesn’t follow either, people are able to commit suicide all the time. The difference is there is absolutely no dignity at all in throwing yourself in front of a train, nor is there any requirement for a doctor to sign off on it. People just do it out of desperation.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, egg said:

First highlighted point. That, with respect, is a daft thing to say. The issues are entirely different. Marriage is between people, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Except you. 

The 2nd point highlights your naivety on this. It'll happen. You also completely ignore how people who are a burden feel about that, and how they are or could be made to feel. 

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience.

You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected.

Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.