Assisted Suicide

[Saracen]

.....

I know...100%, that if i was dying, no matter how much pain i was in, i would go through it just to have 1 more minute a day with my children.
If i could choose to die though, i may do just to save my family from watching me die. That cant be right.

But then there's the the side of the coin.

It's fine for you to decide for yourself that, 100%, that's your wish. But what about someone who's wish, 100%, is to decide for themself?

The classic example is someone with terminal and degenerative disease, who knows what they're in for, and knows how unpleasant things can become, and is 100% determined to not go through it. If I ever end up with one of those conditions, that will 100% include me.

When I decide I'm going, I'm going, and I'm not letting ANYONE else's view that it is wrong affect that. The decision is already made, and as it happens, I have the means to achieve it right here .... and have had for years.

If someone is determined that they're going out at some specific point, without suffering a given level of pain and perhaps as important, without suffering a given level of loss of dignity, then one of two situations occurs :-

- they are still physically able to do it, in which case, they'll do it.
- they really, really want it, but aren't physically capable.

And if someone is determined enough, then without us each having the ability to determine our own fate, the risk is that people will take that final step before they need to rather than risk ending up not being able to. Because if you risk waiting just a bit too long, then you can end up not being able to make your own decisions, and if that happens, then either you have to die a death you're desperate to avoid, or a loved one has to be prepared to risk serious criminal charges just to help you achieve what you want and what they know is what you want.

So what does the loved one do? Honour your wishes, help you avoid the suffering and perhaps go to jail? Or refuse to help, condemning you to a slow, painful, lingering, undignified and totally unavoidable death? What a decision to leave your loved ones with. So I won't, if I have any choice, leave them with it. Oh, and I have a statement attached to my will explaining all this.

So, if I were facing that scenario, I'd make flippin' sure I didn't leave my loved ones with that dilemma.


This is one of those situations where there really is no good answer. But to my mind, the least bad answer is have a carefully constructed system with plenty of safeguards and checks, but to have a system. Because, in many cases, you are NOT going to avoid the problem by making it or keeping it illegal. All you do is drive the problem underground, and then, you risk even more abuses than you have by having a system.

If someone fears that an inheritance may be lost through care costs, what's currently to stop them putting pressure on someone to kill themselves now? That pressure can be psychological, pretty subtle and virtually impossible to detect, let alone prove. And there's no systemic checks on it. But if legalised suicide were an option, then there'd be a process to go through, and no reason to not go through it.

It's a bit like the issue with abortion. Or prostitution. You can make them illegal, but it WON'T stop either. Instead, it drives them underground, and if anything, makes them even more dangerous.

On the other hand, a formalised assisted suicide program with the necessary safeguards could actually stop some of those abuses.

As for me, I've seen how some illnesses end, and I've seen it with loved ones too often. I am NOT going that way, if I have any choice in the matter whatsoever. And I don't care what the law, or society, thinks about it. There is precisely ONE person with the right to decide when my life ends, and that's me. My decision will include factors like how it affects my family and friends, and I'd prefer the chance to discuss it with them and explain my reasoning and my decision. But make no mistake, when I decide to go I'm going, whether society and the law like it or not, and in the ultimate case, whether family and friends like it or not. And if you want to do something very dangerous indeed, just try getting in between me and the means to fulfil my decision once my decision has been made.

[Blitzen]

But what about the other point that was very well made by another poster.

What if the person decided they were a burden but by the same token, were not ready to die.
What if they make the decision on behalf of others rather than for themselves?

In this case, it is wrong.
BTW...i am neither for or against it and until my time comes (if it does as i want to live forever )its an impossible question that no-one has a right or wrong answer to.
Its just too personal.

[AledJ]

Hope it is not too late to comment on this one because it is a subject that I have never been able to make my mind up about.

It has always concerned me that someone with a terminal illness may feel "obligated" to request euthanisia if it were available and, of course, there is always the possibility of an elderly person being put under pressure because there is an inheritance involved and a danger that if the person lives the inheritance will be depleted to pay for the person's care. I heard on the radio last week that Lady ? (can't remember her name but she had the title "Lady") actually said it was the "duty" of a terminally ill person to die!

It also concerns me that with the shortage of NHS beds and cut-backs that if euthanisa were legal it would cease to be a "choice".

Adding to my doubts about this is that a friend of mine recently died from a brain tumour - she had lived for five years with the tumour and knew time was running out - many a time she said she just wanted to "end it all" but then she would rally and have some good days. she spent the last six months in a hospice where she was, as far as someone in that position could be, happy. She was well looked after and had the time to come to terms with what was happening, make her peace with the world and spend time with those she loved before, early one Sunday morning, she slipped away.

You have summed that up perfectly and I agree with the points you have made!

[Saracen]

But what about the other point that was very well made by another poster.

What if the person decided they were a burden but by the same token, were not ready to die.
What if they make the decision on behalf of others rather than for themselves?

How do you stop that now? How do you prevent someone that feels like that taking a few tablets?

If there were a formalised assisted suicide facility, then the incentive isn't there to use a DIY method, so the checks and balances come into play and it can be argued that that is better than we have now.

Also, personally, if I know it was a case of suffering a slow, painful and undignified death AND paying a fortune in palliative care on the process, I'd rather avoid the lingering death and leave my estate to my loved ones, not to a nursing home (via fees). It's my choice.

But if others want to delay to the last instant, that's their choice and the system ought to protect that.

But right now, it doesn't help me at all and will force me into unnecessary steps, should that time come.

... Its just too personal.

Yes, precisely. It's a personal decision, which is why the legal system should certainly provide safeguards, but should protect the rights of ALL of us to do it our way, not to try to keep those of us that do want the suicide option from having it. Right now, it's all one-sided.

[Mblaster]

But what about the other point that was very well made by another poster.

What if the person decided they were a burden but by the same token, were not ready to die.
What if they make the decision on behalf of others rather than for themselves?

They are still making an informed choice, and as long as it's their choice they should be allowed to do it. Other people thinking that it's a bad choice isn't a reason for it to be illegal.

[Blitzen]

They are still making an informed choice, and as long as it's their choice they should be allowed to do it. Other people thinking that it's a bad choice isn't a reason for it to be illegal.

I didnt say it should or shouldnt be illegal.

Until you are in that position (god forbid), its impossible to know whats right or wrong.

[Saracen]

I didnt say it should or shouldnt be illegal.

Until you are in that position (god forbid), its impossible to know whats right or wrong.

I don't agree in the slightest. I don't pretend to know what's right for anyone else, but I DO know what's right for me, and I'm being denied it by the law.

I've experienced enough to know that I want the option to make the decision that's right for me, and the time to decide that isn't when it's too late to do anything about it. That's why people want the law changed.

But until such time as it is changed, if it ever is, there will be people (like me) that make sure they have the means at hand all the time. And from personal knowledge, I can state that I'm not the only one. Personally, I am NOT going have have politicians decide how I end my time on earth. I utterly reject any notion that they have a say in the matter. So, rather than risk dropping my loved ones into legal problems, I've taken steps to ensure that my options are open, without dropping them in it, in every way that I possibly can.

And not only do I reject the idea that politicians can make that decision for me, I also reject the notion that doctors can either. I will do everything I can to ensure I don't end up in hospital with doctors deciding that they know what's best for me and that I don't. It's conceivable that a situation could occur in which I find myself in that pickle with no alternative, but if I see it coming, I won't be ending up there and will use those means before it gets to that point. And that could mean I use them before I'm either really ready to or actually need to. And why? Because the law denies me the option of doing it quietly and with some dignity, at the last moment.

I'm not suicidal. I've had the means I refer to available for years and have never been tempted, nor do I expect to in what I hope will be many more years or decades. But I've thought this through a long time ago, and with VERY good reason, and I'm NOT ending up in the clutches of doctors who put their opinion of my best interest before mine. Not if I have any say in it.

That the law denies me the right to be the ultimate arbiter of my own fate forces me to take measures to ensure that I regain that right in any and all circumstances where I can contrive to do so.

[Amalie]

You obviously feel strongly about this subject and have given it a lot of thought and your arguments are certainly very persuasive. Perhaps the answer is that people with particular illnesses who have no hope of a cure or dignified death should be given the right to assisted suicide?

I'd like to ask your views on this: I recall reading an article by a doctor who strongly opposed assisted suicide on the grounds that the role of medical staff is to keep patients alive and he would not want to be faced with the possibility that he or his staff would be legally bound to assist in ending the life of a patient. Whilst we know that there are occasions when a patient can already refuse treatment to keep them alive current legislation does not allow for a patient to request assistance in ending his/her life. If assisted suicide were an option, how would you envisage this would work - who would assist you?

[Saracen]

....

I'd like to ask your views on this: I recall reading an article by a doctor who strongly opposed assisted suicide on the grounds that the role of medical staff is to keep patients alive and he would not want to be faced with the possibility that he or his staff would be legally bound to assist in ending the life of a patient. Whilst we know that there are occasions when a patient can already refuse treatment to keep them alive current legislation does not allow for a patient to request assistance in ending his/her life. If assisted suicide were an option, how would you envisage this would work - who would assist you?

I certainly respect the right of individual doctors to not have to assist, either it they consider it conflicts with their medical ethics, or personal views, be they religious or otherwise. No doctor should be forced to assist, and certainly not legally bound to do so.

However, not all doctors feel that way. There are those that, in the right circumstances, feel it is both appropriate and a kindness, but won't currently, both for fear of legal repercussions and professional issues. I wouldn't be surprised if, on occasion, a doctor or two hasn't at least looked the other way in particularly heart-rending cases, though.

But, taking it a step further, it doesn't need a doctor to insert an IV line. There are any number of people that can do that.

But even that isn't quite what this thread was about, at least originally. It's certainly true that I believe each and every one of us has the right to make that decision for ourselves and, as a result, I would like to see assisted suicide, with the appropriate legal safeguards, in this country. But right now, there's nothing whatever in UK law to stop me (or any adult that's physically capable) boarding a plane and flying to a country where I can get help. Even if it's known why I'm going there, nobody will stop me. But if my physical condition has deteriorated to the point where I need help to make the journey, anyone (like a husband, wife, etc) helping me is at least theoretically liable to prosecution. I find it fatuous that my wife could be jailed for helping me to make a trip that nobody can stop me making if I'm physically able to travel alone. It's daft.

And the rather insidious result is likely to be people will be forced into making that trip earlier than they want to, or need to, just to be sure they are able to make it unassisted. If it hasn't already had that effect, I'd be astonished.

And, of course, that negates any problems with UK doctor's ethics, though I think it's a travesty that people have to travel abroad for this.

[Saracen]

You obviously feel strongly about this subject and have given it a lot of thought and your arguments are certainly very persuasive. Perhaps the answer is that people with particular illnesses who have no hope of a cure or dignified death should be given the right to assisted suicide? ......

In my opinion, yes. But it does beg a question ..... what particular illnesses are appropriate to qualify? And should it be restricted to illnesses?

If someone is determined to kill themselves, there are many ways that are pretty much guaranteed to work. There are some obvious ones that are both very messy and highly disruptive to transportation systems, not to mention highly unpleasant for the poor people that have to scrape the remains off the ground. Why should emergency service personnel have to go through that particularly grizzly experience periodically?

There are other far less messy methods that are still highly reliable. I'm not going into detail for obvious reasons, but I reckon it'd take me less than half an hour in any reasonable-sized town centre to buy what would be needed. My point is that anyone half-competent, and determined, should not find it difficult to work out a way that's sure to be successful. If someone is going to do it, it's hard to stop them.

And, if that is genuinely their wish, and they can satisfy legal safeguards, and if they express that intention repeatedly over a sufficient period of time to avoid spur-of-the-moment types that don't really mean it, then my belief is that each and every one of us should be the final arbiter of our own fate. And as long as we're not too physically infirm, as a pragmatic matter of fact, we ARE that final arbiter anyway. It's just the method and level of inconvenience you both have to go through, and cause, that varies.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of people that won't agree. My point is that they have the right to make that decision for themselves, but they do NOT have the right to tell me that I can't make it for myself.

[christiansoldie]

Apart from whatever moral arguments might be raised (which I'm not raising) one of the dilemmas we are finding in the states in the US that allow assisted-suicides is that folks are choosing death because they are depressed and not necessarily because they are going through a slow death process.



Hello! The 'first do no harm' quacks, erm, doctors could at least screen them, before offing them. No?

[Saracen]

Apart from whatever moral arguments might be raised (which I'm not raising) one of the dilemmas we are finding in the states in the US that allow assisted-suicides is that folks are choosing death because they are depressed and not necessarily because they are going through a slow death process.



Hello! The 'first do no harm' quacks, erm, doctors could at least screen them, before offing them. No?

Oh, yes. I'm not saying that anyone should just be able to walk in off the street, and get an over-the-counter 'service'. Far from it. That's why I've added the caveats, several times, such as

And, if that is genuinely their wish, and they can satisfy legal safeguards, and if they express that intention repeatedly over a sufficient period of time to avoid spur-of-the-moment types that don't really mean it, ......

There needs to be a process, and there most certainly needs to be safeguards and that means against several types of problem. But, at the end of the day, my belief is that we are all our own masters and that the ultimate human right is to not be kept alive against your will because someone else doesn't think you have the right to decide you've had enough.

By all means have a medical screen, and by all means have a set of legal requirements, and by all means don't force doctors that don't want to be involved to participate, and as I said, by all means have a mandatory delay period. But, at the end of all that, I believe that we each have a right to decide we've had enough. If you (and I mean a generic you, not you personally) don't want to exercise that right, then fine. That's your decision. But I object very strongly to other people telling me I can't exercise that right for myself. It's my choice, my right, my decision and my life. And nobody, but nobody, has a right to overrule me on that.

[jem]

Im all for it,It should be your own choice if you are ill and never going to get better then you should have the right.

[cleaverlch]

Im all for it,It should be your own choice if you are ill and never going to get better then you should have the right.

What if the cure comes out the day after you died?

[jem]

Like i said its your own choice,You would have to do some research before you choose what to do, But the odds are slim dont you think.

[0iD]

What if the cure comes out the day after you died?

What if it doesn't
Let's face it cures will take months of clinical trials before they're released to the general populus.