LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe fact that the legal position is fatuous is one good reason for not just accepting the status quo. That CBQ article makes a compelling case for sorting out the confusion.Originally Posted by santa claus
The fact that the legal position is fatuous is one good reason for not just accepting the status quo. That CBQ article makes a compelling case for sorting out the confusion.
The problem with applying the law to this area is that it is a very blunt instrument, that cannot cover all eventualities.
While someone with a terminal illness where the eventual outcome is certain may wish to take their own life, there are other cases where it is not so clear cut.
There have been docmented cases where someone suffering from depression takes an overdose of some drug in an atempt to commit suicde, is discovered, treatment administered and the subject is then grateful that treatment was given. Particularly sad if the overdose is paracetamol, which kills through liver failure some time after the overdose when the patient regrets the action, but can do nothing about it.
Then there are those who seek out and encourage suicide:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/n...es-mar-15-2011 who, in my opinion, were rightly convicted. Should the victims be protected?
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the 'mercy killings'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-murder.html
Although in this case the patient wasn't suffering from a terminal illness.
can a law be fine tuned enough to cover all eventualities? I suspect not.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Well yes it is my personal opinion and so is your post. I'm not sure how many more times I will need to say that my opinion is my opinion and it is offered as food for thought, not as fact.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).
What you describe as disgusting is the law. You accept that law is necessary I assume? Saracen feels the law is fatuous and confusing and that's his opinion.
Legalised euthanasia will affect society of which I am part. Some contributors view it as dignified closure; on the other side of the coin, it may also open doors (see peterb's post above).
There is sanctity in life. In my opinion.
You see things differently but you don't present anything that changes my opinion (not on this occasion anyway).
And in mine. But I ought to clarify. I think I kicked off the "sanctity" bit by picking up krazy_oile on a point he made, which was ...
What I said, in response to his comment about the right to life is that that right, pr sanctity, is not absolute. It's not even absolute in Human Rights terms. It's certainly very strong, but not absolute.
Also, there is nothing in Human Rights law precluding suicide, and nothing in it precluding "assisting".
Actually, not exactly my opinion, though I happen to largely agree, and though the term "fatuous" was my characterisation (and I believe an accurate representation of the tone), the "confusing" bit wasn't. It was, as I said, the opinion of a very prominent barrister in the Criminal Bar Quarterly. That is, an opinion on the state of the law, by an eminent lawyer for the consumption of other barristers, as part of a discussion on the current state of the law. I summarised the overall tone of that argument, but it was a comprehensive argument by a barrister, not my opinion.
I also urge great caution on the use of the term "euthanasia", because a LOT depends on exactly what is meant by that term. Just about all major definitions, from the OED definition to the House of Lords, regards euthanasia as the taking of the life of person A by person B, though it adds other aspects to the definition, like it being for the benefit of person A, perhaps with their consent but perhaps not, and so on.
But the Pratchet documentary was not referring to that, the Swiss law allowing Dignitas to operate does not include that and nothing I've said in this thread is about that. It confuses the subject of the documentary if it's widened out to include a far more complex topic like euthanasia, though it's a tactic often used by the "anti" campaign, including in the Newsnight documentary.
I refer mainly to the bit in red-bold.
It's hard, but it can be done. I say that because it has been. It's the Mental Capacity Act, 2005.
This is a fairly lengthy piece of legislation and it covers all sorts of things, from lasting power of attorney to incurring costs or buying goods or services on behalf of someone unable to do it themselves .... so you could find yourself paying for services you had no idea you were liable for, because the act gives someone else the authority to make that decision on your behalf.
One of the sections of that Act covers ADRT's .... Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment.
You can if over 18 and if you have the mental capacity to make the decision, make binding, formal decisions as to when and if certain treatments are not to be carried out, under under what circumstances, if you lack the mental capacity to make that decision at the time.
So you could decide, for yourself and in advance, what is to be done or not done if you find yourself in a long-term coma as a result of an accident.
It's a fine line, is it not, for a doctor to be able to withhold something they know you will die without, such as nutrition or hydration, and a person, who may not be a doctor, giving you a drink that both they and you know will be fatal if you drink it, and letting you drink it? In both cases, the "patient" has made the decision, in one case to drink a lethal draft. and in the other, to refuse food or water, or medical equivalents thereof.
It's also worth pointing out that that Act explicitly stipulates that a person will be assumed to have mental capacity unless a fairly strict set of criteria can be met to establish that he/she does not have the capacity, and it's essentially the process I outlined earlier in this thread, to comprehend, retain, communicate and make decisions if given full information, etc.
It is also explicitly stipulated in that Act that it is NOT enough to imply lack of capacity just because someone makes a decision that is unwise or seems unreasonable. That has a couple of implications. First, it's not for ANYONE to second-guess why a person makes a decision, just to assess on defined grounds if they have the capacity to make it, or not. Second, if we have mental capacity, we can make decisions, and are responsible for the consequences of them.
You saidI'm sure that's true. But :-There have been docmented cases where someone suffering from depression takes an overdose of some drug in an atempt to commit suicde, is discovered, treatment administered and the subject is then grateful that treatment was given.
1) Depression is not sufficient to remove the mental capacity to make decisions.
2) We have to be responsible for the consequences of our actions. I mean, legally, we are responsible.
3) Not all suicide attempts are serious. Some are calls for help.
4) If you go through the Dignitas process, and drink those drinks, there is NO doubt about the outcome. It will be fatal, and fairly rapidly. It's not a good idea to do that as a call for help.
5) If you go through that process, you've undergone a thorough mental assessment by two doctors,and you will not be allowed to proceed if you do not qualify as having the mental capacity.
6) By the time you've been through it, as the documentary showed, you've had the implications explained to you repeatedly, you've signed all the relevant paperwork, and it's pretty clear that you mean to achieve exactly what you will achieve.
Under the Mental Capacity Act, you can legally make a statement that prevents doctors from applying treatments that would save your life. If establishes, in other words, that YOUR decision is to die IF a given set of circumstances arises and you do not have the mental capacity to make a decision you'd be entitled to make, i.e. refuse treatment, and as a consequence, you will die by virtue of that legal instruction.
In other words, the Dignitas process is already quite a bit more restrictive and proscriptive than the standard required by a decision under the Mental Capacity Act that will result in your death, yet you have the legal right to make that decision, in advance, in case you don't have the capacity top make it when the circumstances arise. The Mental Capacity Act explicitly stipulates you are presumedto have the capacity unless it can be established you do not. The Dignitas process, however, is not available unless you can demonstrate that you have the capacity.
This reflects one very clear fundamental principle - if a person has the mental capacity to make decision, they can make legally binding decisions that will result in their death, and that it's is that person's decision, and their right to make it.
This is precisely what I've been advocating in this thread, in the case of assisted dying - if I am of sound mind and decide I'd rather die than undergo either the physical of mental suffering associated with a terminal or incurable and debilitating illness, then it's my decision to make, as long as I am not mentally incapacitated, just as it is my decision if I choose to complete an ADRT, which will also result in my death if it comes into effect.
If legislation can do the one, and it already has, then almost exactly the same legislation could be used to implement the wishes of the individual in the other.
That was exactly my point, we could debate the morality of euthanasia all we want but most of us will always have a completely different view of it.
You believe in the sanctity of life and I believe living a life you do not desire is torturous; down the line its simply a difference of opinion like many others. But you go further, you are ready to deprive me of taking moral/rational choices regarding and affecting only my own life due to your own views and standings.
Creating a legal process that enables individuals in especial conditions to die if they so desire (something the rest of us already enjoy) would change very little other than greatly accommodate for the needs and freedoms of some in great pain. Yet you say no because it affects the Society you live in (although you didn't say how) when in reality nothing in respect to your person, other than granting you more choice in the future, would change. It all goes down to how your own perceptions and opinions of society would be affected and that's hardly a reason to impose anything to others, especially pain and all that this subject includes.
aidanjt (16-06-2011),MaddAussie (16-06-2011),Phage (16-06-2011)
Fine. The topic has so many blurry edges that confining it to a specific type of suicide was always going to be difficult. I would say this is one of the occasions in which going 'off-topic' to introduce relevant comment is justified.
Incidentally, in this thread, the term euthanasia wasn't introduced by the 'anti-campaign'.
Yes, opinion is opinion not a definition of right and wrong. For good reason, the law is there to protect. You imply that those choosing to die are old and in unbearable pain. Do you feel the same way about a young person who wants to exercise the right to die?
On the plus side, younger premature death would be handy for spare parts. Hmm, yes, you may be right let's let youngsters die with dignity and get 'em in the fridge quickly.
Euthanasia isn't a form of suicide by any generally accepted definition, though. I've no objection to broadening the discussion out, but this started about Pratchet and Dignitas, and any form of euthanasia (be it voluntary, non-voluntary or mandatory) isn't what's on offer by Dignitas.
Part of my point is we all already have a right to choose to end our own lives, and to do it in the UK, and it's not within the legal powers of the doctors or the state to prevent us, by virtue of being entitled to do anything that isn't prevented by law, and suicide isn't.
As soon as it's about someone else administering the lethal element, in whatever form, then euthanasia in it's various forms comes into it. But the Pratchet documentary wasn't talking about that.
True. It was about getting somebody else to provide the means for the dirty work in the name of 'compassion'. That makes them complicit in an illegal act. You feel the law should change. I don't.
Talking about loaded..
No, their act of providing the assistance is the illegal bit. The suicide itself is perfectly legal.
If I'd meant it to be loaded, I'd have said 'murder' not 'dirty work'.
Eh? Not sure why you're making this distinction. That's what I said.
To me this just seems to be the kind of hazard that your imposing your viewpoint on someone else.
The thing is we do this a lot in society, the most common I'd guess is with child abuse cases, in plenty of situations the child beleives what is happening to be correct, its all they have ever known, they don't see whats wrong with it. Some training I was given we were basically told to make sure we don't in any way suggest to them its not, that they are a victim etc because someone a little more qualified should be doing that. As such victims of abuse may well WANT to stay in that situation, largely due to brainwashing/fear of unknown.
As a society we then impose our rules on those individuals because we think of them as vulnerable, we step in to stop what we call 'abuse', I doubt anyone here is suggesting we shouldn't keep doing that even when the person is sane by any other measure. So its not as if there isn't a precedence for forcing someone to comply with our moral code.
I guess the main difference here is that death is something which ultimately everyone will suffer, as such I find it hard to see how someone else should be allowed to inflict their views on to a person who is sane.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The viewpoint imposed is that of the law, with which I agree.
Terry is sane; he can do himself in if he wants to. No-one is needed to assist. Why should he be allowed to inflict his preference on others?
Not necessarily .... or in the case of Ms Purdy, not at all. It's about several things, but any change in the law may or may not cover that.
Right now, if someone is capable of travelling to Switzerland to get to Dignitas, there is NOTHING that can be done to stop them, if they are of sound mind. It is not illegal to travel, even for the explicit purpose of assisted suicide. It's not illegal if you "commit" suicide (though it's a misnomer as it hasn't been illegal for 560 years, which is where the "commit|" bit came from.
So if I, for instance, decided to go to Dignitas, as long as I'm of sound mind, I won't be and can't be stopped, and I don't commit any offence. Anyone accompanying me, on the other hand, might well be committing an offence, and is certainly op;en to the risk of prosecution, for helping me something something that it is my clear and express will to do, and is legal to do.
It's not illegal for someone to help me fill in an ADRT form, which may also result in my death, but it is (or potentially is) if the come to Switzerland to hold my hand, right to the end.
Which is why a lot of people want the law changed, and laws aren't necessarily right. For instance, Human Rights law has changed, and for that matter, suicide used to be a criminal offence .... and if ever a law was fatuous, that one was. By definition, if you've committed suicide, a prosecution will be tricky.
But it's more than that. The point is that suicide is legal. Anyone with the mental capacity to make that decision is legally entitled to do so, and the viewpoint they are following is their own. If they are physically capable of doing it, in this country and on their own, then that's that. As I said, I have way more than adequate quantities of legal drugs here to get the job done, and if the need ever arises, I will use them. However, it's still an unknown quantity, and most likely an unpleasant process. If necessary, and if I have the funds, I can use Dignitas too, and if I decide to go that route, I will do so, because it's my choice.
The problem arises when someone either can't afford to go, ore isn't physically capable of making the journey on their own, or even is physically capable, but they want their loved ones with them ad their loved ones want to be there, as was the case with Peter Smedley. But then, the law steps in and threatens the loved ones with 14 years in jail for doing so, for "assisting" someone to do what they have a legal right to do.
All I want is for it to be my choice how, when and if I choose to end my life, and for my loved ones to be there, if they wish. Other people, however, want to impose their will over mine and deny me the option to do in this country what they the law doesn't try to stop me doing by going abroad, and threaten my loved ones just for coming with me.
If those against this are against suicide, that's fine with me. Don't do it, then. That's their choice. Just don't tell me I can't, or that my loved ones risk jail if they come with me, even if it's to try to talk me out of it.
He has the mental capacity right now, but if he suffers from Alzheimers, that will not last. He therefore has to decide to die earlier than he might like, just to ensure he still has the mental capacity to make that decision at the time, despite the fact that the Mental Capacity Act gives us all the ability to make life and death decisions, such as ADRTs, while we have the capacity will be be enforceable if we do not. There are plenty of safeguards built in to that, and the same or more could cover this situation too, because the parallels are very close. Both involve an act of volition, be it making that legal document, or drinking a drink, both involve fatal results and both involve ensuring the wishes of the individual are respected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote