Terry Pratchett starts process to take his own life

[Saracen]

I'm not saying other people shouldn't watch it (realise that it came out a bit aggressive sorry!), just sounded distasteful to me.

Fair enough. It certainly wasn't comfortable viewing. But it was a way to kick-start discussion. It sure worked here.

....

You said that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a life, so I would disagree there I would say it's a cornerstone of basic human rights. I don't think human rights cease to exist upon a person because they choose to waive them. The rest of the stuff is a result of opening it up but the problem for me is there really.

There is something inherently wrong with taking a human life in most circumstances. But there are exceptions to that, currently embedded in Human Rights laws, and even those Human Rights laws change over time.

When is it not inherently wrong to take a life? Well, for a start, when it's the only practical and reasonable way to prevent another being taken. Suppose a bank robber points a shotgun at a hostage? Is it not reasonable for armed police to shoot to prevent injury to that hostage?

There is no absolute sanctity of life in legislation, Human Rights law or otherwise. And as I said, the Suicide Act 1961 explicitly decriminalised suicide. All Dignitas really do is to provide the option for a controlled setting, with safeguards, and a drug the effectiveness of which is far more controlled, than the option many people, including me, could use at home by using drugs they can either easily get, or already have at home. In my case, I have drugs here that will kill, and I have enough for a massive overdose, something of the order 40 to 50 times the necessary dosage. Should the point come where my decision is that that is my wish, and if that far more controlled option is not available, well, guess what? I have a DIY method available. I currently have no reason to believe that that time is any time soon, or that it will necessarily ever be the case, but I do have reason to, as the Boy Scouts used to say, "be prepared".

[krazy_olie]

"That doesn't mean you or the government is violating your own human rights by 'allowing' you to not speak or not worship"

I don't really see how that's the same thing. It is my right to worship or not if I choose to do so, the right is that I can do EITHER not just that I have the right to worship.
In regards to the protection of human life, I have a right to be protected by the law from being killed.

As for withdrawing from treatment, the sort of situations are ones where the treatment itself has a risk factor and can be detrimental itself.

as for straight suicide there it's a bit of a moot point, I can try and prevent you but I can't stop you if you are particularly determined. To make it unlawful against would be pointless whether you think it's right or not.

Edit - exceptions:

Yes things like stopping someone kill someone else are exceptions. Though if you want to look at it in another way it is an extension of the persons being pursued's right to life in the first place. The bank robber threatens to violate that right and his obligation to not kill people.

Also sorry if I come off as unsympathetic to the cause, I don't mean to be! I just have issues with any legalised killing, regardless of how dignified it is.

[roachcoach]

As for withdrawing from treatment, the sort of situations are ones where the treatment itself has a risk factor and can be detrimental itself.

Not always. For example one does not have to accept dialysis. No real downsides there other than inconvenience.

[aidanjt]

I don't really see how that's the same thing. It is my right to worship or not if I choose to do so, the right is that I can do EITHER not just that I have the right to worship.

Exactly, just as you can either choose to live or not. It ceases to be a right when a 3rd party forces you to do something against your will.

In regards to the protection of human life, I have a right to be protected by the law from being killed.

Correct. You do. It's called the Murder Act. Which satisfies the human right to life.

As for withdrawing from treatment, the sort of situations are ones where the treatment itself has a risk factor and can be detrimental itself.

As opposed to not breathing? DNRs have the same result as assisted suicide for the terminally ill, only you've prolonged the period of pain and suffering.

[Saracen]

...

In regards to the protection of human life, I have a right to be protected by the law from being killed.

Under most circumstances, but it's not absolute. Nor, in the case of assisted suicide, is ANYONE killing you, other than you.

As for withdrawing from treatment, the sort of situations are ones where the treatment itself has a risk factor and can be detrimental itself.

Most treatments have a risk. Any surgery that involves anaesthetic has a risk. Any surgery that involves general anaesthetic involves a risk. In both ofthose cases, it's very small, but real.

Chemotherapy has a risk. One risk is that it may not work or work well, and will very likely involve a significant and possibly huge reduction is quality of life. But the basic process is, simplistically put, using a system poison administered in such a way that you kill the cancer faster than you kill the patient. There have been cases, usually of what certainly appears to be medical incompetence, where chemo drugs have killed, such as by administering drugs intended to be taken orally intravenously instead. Again, a risk only suffered because of accepting the chemo treatment in the first place.

But in terms of refusing treatment, we can all refuse any treatment, regardless of the ratio between risk and benefit, even life-saving emergency treatment, provided we have the mental capacity to make that decision, and are fully informed about the risks and benefits. We get to make that decision, and we do so for our reasons, not just medical factors like risk or benefit. I can refuse a life-saving transfusion because I don't like needles, if I wish. No doubt doctors would try, and try damn hard, to change my mind, but as long as I'm mentally competent and understand the issues, it's my decision to make. And, if I make that decision, any doctor that tried to force me better to be prepared to face me doing my level best to shove his needle where he'll need a torch and long-nosed pliers (not to mention skill as a contortionist) to retrieve it from.

....

as for straight suicide there it's a bit of a moot point, I can try and prevent you but I can't stop you if you are particularly determined. To make it unlawful against would be pointless whether you think it's right or not.

That's the point. All these assisted suicide clinics do is provide a method whereby YOU can "commit suicide" in a calm and controlled way, but it's YOUR act, not anyone else's. Nobody else is administering drugs to you. You have to administer them to yourself. It is still, whatever phrase we use to describe it, suicide. The suggestion is to change the law to allow a calm place to be provided, and someone (with all the warnings and safeguards I mentioned) to hand you a cup with a drink it it. It's entirely up to you to drink or not, and if they're not sure your intention is to die, they won't even give you the chance. A good number are refused on the assessments, and sent home, because of the stipulations of the Swiss legal regime.

[santa claus]

Topic discussed. Agreement not reached. Law currently remains as before.

Might be better if Pratchett just tops himself without all the hullabaloo.

[aidanjt]

Yes it would be more convenient for the opposition if they didn't have anyone to challenge their dogma. I'm sure the religious feel the same about atheists challenging their mandatory brainwashing ideas as well.

[santa claus]

Yes it would be more convenient for the opposition if they didn't have anyone to challenge their dogma.

So you're going to mount a legal challenge against curent dogma, erm, I mean law?

[Saracen]

Topic discussed. Agreement not reached. Law currently remains as before.

Might be better if Pratchett just tops himself without all the hullabaloo.

Law remains as before at the moment. It remains to be seen if it stays that way.

There is a significant body of opinion that say that the legal position, as it stands right now, is not only unsatisfactory but, in essence, not fit for purpose. I can try to dig it out if you want, but there was a very cogent explanation in the Criminal Bar Quarterly, about a year ago, of many of the current problems with the situation as it stands now, with the "guidance" from the DPP arguably overruling the clear intent of Parliament in statute.

I don't agree with all of that article, but I do agree with a good chunk of it, not least that the "clarification" the Lords required of the DPP hasn't really clarified anything much in a way that makes the situation or risks much clearer to those it might affect, while at the same time being labelled an offender's charter by some. It's currently not much pleasing anybody, with one side wanting it liberalised and the other side wanting it beefed up. Instead, it sits on the fence and wrings it's hands in confusion. And politicians seem to be to cowardly to grasp the nettle and sort it all out, either way.

So, we currently have a situation where something is technically illegal, but with a very high bar to cross before prosecutions are made, quite possibly because of the perceived difficulty in getting a conviction if you do prosecute.

There are HUGE legal problems right now. For a start, suppose someone accompanies a close relative to Switzerland, with that relative determined to attend and utilise the services of Dignitas. The offence is ....

A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Suppose the person that accompanies someone to Switzerland does so to try to persuade them, right up until it's too late, not to do it. Does that constitute in any way either aid, or abetting, or counselling (to do it) or procuring? Hardly.

And moreover, in the context of innocent until proven guilty, can a prosecutor get such a case past a jury? Because to do so, they've really got to be able to prove the motivation, the intent, of the companion and if they're half-awake to the law, that's going to be awfully hard to do.

Which means, is there (other than extreme cases where greed or financial gain can be clearly established as the motive) any realistic prospect of achieving a conviction? And is it in the public interest to try, if the intent was compassion, not gain?

There's a legal (common law) doctrine .... res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. As there have been so few (does anyone know of any, EVER) prosecutions under the Suicide Act s2, it suggests that, for whatever reason, that law isn't being enforced, and the inference is either the DPP doesn't consider the cases that have arisen to be in the public interest to prosecute, or because they don't think (in each case, on it's merits) they can get a conviction. Or both. And, by the way, the DPP have to consent, personally, to any such prosecution before it can even start. That too is in the statute.

The argument can be made, then, that either we have an inappropriate law, or an unenforceable one, and in any event, one that can entail considerable stress on anyone thinking of using Dignitas, and their loved ones, regardless of the loved one's intent. Even those acting out of nothing beyond love and compassion, simply by accompanying someone, risk prosecution. On top of everything else, they have that to worry about.

So, if I were in, for instance, Peter Smedley's position, the law cannot stop me from travelling to Switzerland to go to Dignitas, when my intent is explicitly to die, but it can and might prosecute the wife if she comes with me to hold my hand to the end. What an utterly fatuous legal position.

[Saracen]

So you're going to mount a legal challenge against curent dogma, erm, I mean law?

Personally I'm not. But as I said earlier, there is currently a commission, under the chairmanship of Charlie Falconer, looking into it and due to report later this year. Though, given the participants, I'm not holding my breath for any liberalisation of the law.

[santa claus]

What an utterly fatuous legal position.

But the legal position nonetheless.

Perhaps things will change but whichever way the coin falls, there will always be winners and losers.

[Phage]

That was exactly the point that debbie Purdey was trying to resolve I believe.

[TheAnimus]

Might be better if Pratchett just tops himself without all the hullabaloo.

It depends on if your lucky enough to be phsyically able to get yourself to one of the 'nice' places to die without the help of a loved one. As it stands that person can find themselves in a lot of bother with the law.

Increasing the publicity around this might make it easier for those who aren't as rich as him to have access to the same services.

Regardless of if you believe the services are 'the right thing' or not surely you think everyone should have the choice, not just the wealthy physically able?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Perhaps he can go to Moose Alley?

[santa claus]

It depends on if your lucky enough to be phsyically able to get yourself to one of the 'nice' places to die without the help of a loved one. As it stands that person can find themselves in a lot of bother with the law.

Increasing the publicity around this might make it easier for those who aren't as rich as him to have access to the same services.

Regardless of if you believe the services are 'the right thing' or not surely you think everyone should have the choice, not just the wealthy physically able?

Well it's not the law. But what you infer is right, the wealthy shouldn't be greedy .

[Mama Sumae]

Well I can understand why people might not agree with euthanasia but in the end of the day that's nothing but your own personal opinion on a subject that is larger than you and your own views.

Don't like it don't do it, imposing and legally denying choice to others in a subject that affects the individual alone and carries no repercussions in your own life is rather disgusting. You will always have the choice, why deny it to others when it doesn't even affect you at all is beyond me.

Most of us are quick to ridicule religious zealots who so often pass judgement and believe they have the right to tell you how to behave on issues unrelated to themselves, yet many seem to have exactly the same behaviour to what euthanasia is concerned.

Show us how legalised euthanasia affects you personally (other than making you sad) and feel free to impose your opinion, otherwise just expose it (and keep it simple).