assisted dying

[babybird67]

Just been watching a very moving programme about assisted dying with Terry Pratchett.

Is it right for people to be able to choose when they die?

[Limehouse]

It sounds sensible and compassionate not to expect someone to linger on in a life they no longer value.

However - I fear that a law which allows assisted dying will put pressure on people who do want to carry on to the bitter end.

Imagine this scenario. There is a person aged 82 dying of cancer. They could have another six months but their care and medication will cost money. They are convinced that this money should be spent on the young father/mother three beds away who has four young children. They ask for an assisted death. Or - imagine a medic coming along and telling them - "do you really want six more months of life of uncertain quality when you could slip away now - nice and comfory - with a chance to have a real good send off with your family?"

It sounds cruel to require people to carry on when they don't want to but I feel if such a law was passed it would be abused.

[Phil H]

My own concerns are that people might be "pressured" into agreeing to assisted dying or "euthanasia" by relatives or even doctors who are keen to reduce costs, or in some cases to inherit estates.

A "living will" or some such direction made earlier in a person's life cannot, surely, be held to if the person about to be legally killed (which is what we are talking about when the rose-tinted words are removed) cannot confirm that they are still willing - some might want to recent their earlier decision when push came to shove.

I realise that this discussion is about voluntary euthanasia, but I would be concerned that it opens the door to something compulsory. Once you have admitted that "suicide" is OK (in certain circumstances), then you are on a slope that can lead to the argument that it is "humane" to end suffering/preserve dignity and thus SHOULD be done. How long before a Government - not here necessarily in the UK - determined that it was in everyone's interest (not least with an ageing population) that early termination was required in the national interest?

I would draw posters attention to the position in the 20s and 30s regarding "eugenics" which are now besmirched by the Nazi connection. But in the 30s the doctrines of eugenics were widely practised, including in the USA - with sterilisations etc being carried out routinely on the mentally impaired.

This same road - not, emphasise because its supporters wanted it - led to and gave intellectual support for Nazi prigrammes not only of sterilisation, but murder of innocent but challenged members of society.

Beware, I suggest of stepping onto the first rung of such a ladder. Or have your eyes open to the potential consequences, if you do.

I have no view on the question, which it seems to me is for individuals. But, while I have sympathy for the motives of those pressing for a change in the law, I do feel that suicide is a dangerous thing to play with. (If the terminally ill can make the choice, then why not those who are tired of life, depressed, mentally challenged to the point that they can barely function if at all.

I only have questions and concerns here, sorry,

Phil

[Ally]

However - I fear that a law which allows assisted dying will put pressure on people who do want to carry on to the bitter end.

I find that argument kind of a cop-out to be honest. Peer pressure fears are not a valid reason to deny me the right to anything, much less something that is my choice and mine alone. If I am so weak-willed and pathetic that I can be talked into ending my own life, then clearly I don't value it enough to live it any more.

People who have debilitating illnesses or are just done with it should have the right to opt out humanely, not splattering their brains all over the wall for their loved ones to find or wasting away in agony to protect someone else from being talked into it. Why exactly should I suffer to protect some random weak-willed ninny who doesn't value their own life enough to live it if that's what they want to do?

And besides, it's a completely invalid argument anyway. The will to live is pretty ingrained in the species. Oregon has the right to die and not that many people take advantage of it. There aren't hordes of people talking Granny into offing herself so they can divide up the china collection. In the last year, less than a 100 people were given prescriptions for the medication, and only 2/3 of those given scripts took them. So even those who seek it don't go through with it all the time. But for those who want to, those who are determined, they should have the right and the option.

Imagine this scenario. There is a person aged 82 dying of cancer. They could have another six months but their care and medication will cost money. They are convinced that this money should be spent on the young father/mother three beds away who has four young children. They ask for an assisted death. Or - imagine a medic coming along and telling them - "do you really want six more months of life of uncertain quality when you could slip away now - nice and comfory - with a chance to have a real good send off with your family?

Okay so let's imagine that scenario. 82 year old knows their care will cost money. They think it should be spent elsewhere and ask to die. And? So what? They make a choice. Why precisely should that 82 year old, who comes to a conclusion about the value of their life as compared to the life of someone else be dismissed? The fact that you have a different criteria for valuing life doesn't negate their opinion on the value of their own. People sacrifice their own lives for the lives of others all the time. When people die in war to save an another, it's considered brave, yet deciding rationally to not waste the expense and to save another is somehow considered morally reprehensible. A husband throwing himself in front of his wife, or a mother shielding her child from a bullet.... What's the difference really? People have the right to choose to die for other people. They have the right to calculate their own life's value for themselves. And if a medic comes in and says do you really want six months more of uncertain quality, they have the right and the option of saying "yes, I do, Fukk off."

[Sister Hyde]

I think once your own body had become your prison you should have the right to decide if you wanna keep living your life daily with pain or not. now assisted suicide is very very controlled and supervised, not just anyone can ask for it, like in the netherlands, it takes quite a long time for the file to be looked at and even then, unless you're in final stage of and extremly painfull agony you won't be allowed to it. I can understand the concerns of people who think the dying ones might feel pressured by doctors or relatives, but in the countries where it is already legal, being approved for assisted suicide is much more complicated than it looks, you can't just come and say "hey uuuh I just got a start of cancer so please put me down now", and if they notice any kind of doubt...you can kiss you approval goodbye and get ready for a slow and painfull agony

[Phil H]

The problem is that some of these people may not be in their "right mind" or certainly in the right condition to make rational decisions, and thus could be prey to manipulation for various reasons.

I have no problem with people being allowed to do the modern equivalent of sticking their heads in the gas oven, (with some Casebook posters I would urge it ) but I suspect that some might be pushed there by others!

I would almost prefer a principle that says that if you reach 80 or some other chosen age and don't pass some sort of test, then eithanasia is automatic.

Personal freedom is fine, and some are drunk on it these days, but it would be niaive (IMHO) to believe that it is as simple as that.

Phil

[Robert]

It's a bloody difficult subject. Sometimes patients are so drugged up that they hardly know what they're saying. Then again, should a perfectly healthy but very generous person be able to sell both his kidneys and leave a will donating the proceeds to his family/favourite charity?

I can only say that from personal experience if a loved one begged me to help them die and I was sure it wasn't a passing fancy, I'd do it and f*ck the law.

[Sister Hyde]

I would almost prefer a principle that says that if you reach 80 or some other chosen age and don't pass some sort of test, then eithanasia is automatic.

Personal freedom is fine, and some are drunk on it these days, but it would be niaive (IMHO) to believe that it is as simple as that.

Phil

I wpould lower the age of this test to 60...

assisted suicide is not simple at all, when you make such a decision, i assume you haven't been thinking about it "lightly". and the administration refuses most demands actually.

[Ally]

I would almost prefer a principle that says that if you reach 80 or some other chosen age and don't pass some sort of test, then eithanasia is automatic.

So you are for murder of the elderly and not giving them the right to choose for themselves, but you are against allowing them to choose for fear they might be pressured? A rational person might be persuaded, so let's make it illegal, or don't give them the choice at all and just kill them if they can't demonstrate competence?

Screw 40 year olds who might want to die, but make it okay to kill 82 year olds who don't want to?

What?!!!

[Phil H]

Ally

READ my post, I presaged my remark - not intended as anything else than a red-rag, with the words:

I would almost prefer a principle .

Of course I don't want to see such a principle - but my point is, go down the route of assisted suicides and you might well see it. A previous post of mine provides the logic.

Phil

[Ally]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. "If we allow people who want to die to die, pretty soon we'll be killing people who don't want to die" is as logical as "If we allow abortions, pretty soon all unwed teenagers will be forced to abort" or "if we allow people to donate a kidney, pretty soon people will be butchered for their organs".


It's all about fear-mongering and BS. The right to choice is about individuals choosing for THEMSELVES what to do with their lives. It's not about giving doctors the all powerful decision to decide for them.

And there is no such thing as abuse of personal freedom when it comes to determining precisely what happens to you and your body. It is entirely yours to do with as you choose.

[Phil H]

It's all about fear-mongering and BS.

Respectfully, it is NOT - as history (and fairly recent history) shows.

And there is no such thing as abuse of personal freedom when it comes to determining precisely what happens to you and your body. It is entirely yours to do with as you choose.

A fashionable, but essentially unsustainable argument. Look at the legal, health and safety, public good etc implications of that statement. Anyway, the citizen always owes some responsibility to wider society/the state. One's body is not entirely ones own.

Phil

[Ally]

Respectfully, it is NOT - as history (and fairly recent history) shows.

Respectfully it is. Saying that because some group decided to do awful things, I should not have the right to do with my body what I want is a ludicrous argument. The actions of any group is not sufficient reason to deny me a right. Once again, this is the opposite of putting the power in the State's hands or the doctors hands. This is about putting the power where it belongs: in the hands of the individual making the choice.

A fashionable, but essentially unsustainable argument. Look at the legal, health and safety, public good etc implications of that statement.

If you choose to look at it, feel free. The public good is entirely irrelevant to my choice to do what I want with my own body.

Anyway, the citizen always owes some responsibility to wider society/the state. One's body is not entirely ones own.

No they don't. And yes it is. Violations of ones rights doesn't change the fact that we have them. I do not owe "society" anything but that which I choose to give them when it comes to my body. To think otherwise is to endorse the fact that "society" can choose to end your life for no cause, remove your organs against your will, force procreation upon you, experiment on you at will, and there is nothing wrong with that.

You may choose to accept that as a valid, I do not. One's body is entirely ones own.

[johns]

Is it right for people to be able to choose when they die?

Yes...

[Robert]

I demand the right to choose to die aged 200.