assisted dying

[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."

[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

[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.

[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?