assisted dying

[Limehouse]

My mother had a serious heart condition for most of her life. She also had a complicated inherited genetic disease that caused her various difficulties. One day she suffered serious leg fractures after a fall downstairs - followed by a broken hip after a fall in hospital.

I went to visit her after an operation to mend her hip and she seemed OK. She called me to the bed and hugged me. She told me to be a good girl - then she fell back against the pillows looking ill. I was whisked away from her bedside and a few minutes later my dad and a nurse told me she had died.

A doctor had written DNR on her notes. They did not try to revive her. They let her die because THEY felt she'd had enough. She was 47 years old and this was way back in 1968. I was ten years old. They didn't have the right to make that decision for her and I am worried that people in a weakened state like my mother was would be convinced that they should end their lives even if they don't want to.

[babybird67]

looking at the paper today there were quite a few complaints made about the broadcast of one of the particpant's death on the programme. It was a brave thing, to allow that to be filmed. It was so moving to watch it.

Why do people complain about it? Why does death have to be swept under the carpet? No wonder people have problems dealing with the issue of death and dying when there are complaints about the issue being addressed at all on TV.

I applaud the producers for showing exactly what is involved, the respectful and supportive way it was done, the bravery of the man who chose to die and his wife who loved him enough to suffer his loss early.

I don't believe the slippery slope argument either. If we are humane enough to take the lives of our pets when their suffering becomes unbearable, it is inhumane to deny that relief to those of our own species who wish to choose it for themselves.

[Sister Hyde]

I don't want some busybody telling me I have to die in agony while they stand between me and an opportunity to slip away in painless peace, thank you very much.

Love,

Caz
X

Only one option then....that person has to go with you

Robert : sorry you gonna have to choose another date... schedule is full.

[caz]

I sometimes think that some people imagine dying is optional.

It is not a right to die or not to die - the dying is a bloody certainty. It's only the when and the how that some of us will get opportunities to have some measure of control over.

I don't think anyone, whether they represent themselves or some official body (be it the church, the state or the medical profession), should have the power or the right to snatch away those opportunities whenever they present themselves to the individual concerned, any more than they would have the power or the right to bring forward that person's death for their own reasons.

I don't want some busybody telling me I have to die in agony while they stand between me and an opportunity to slip away in painless peace, thank you very much.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

I demand the right to choose to die aged 200.

[johns]

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

Yes...

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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?!!!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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