Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

Poll between 30 March - 7 April 2009:

Should Assisted Suicide be allowed?

Assisted Suicide is primarily an ethical and moral issue, but there is a financial dimension... there are costs to the NHS and therefore the taxpayer, for keeping people with serious medical conditions alive for longer. Recently some politicians have proposed relaxing the constraints against assisted suicide.

Which of these is nearest your view on assisted suicide?

• A. Never. It’s wrong full stop. 8% (939 votes)
• B. Rarely. In medically certified circumstances of extreme pain & discomfort only. 28% (3214 votes)
• C. Individual choice. If someone of sound mind wants to go, it shouldn’t be an offence to help them. 63% (7214 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply to discuss below. Thanks

Enter e-mail to get it:   View Past Emails, FAQ Privacy Policy

[JayZed]

I'm not at all convinced that this is a relevant or appropriate topic for debate on MSE. While it's true that there's a financial impact for the NHS which may be a factor at the policy level, I'm certain that it's the ethical and moral dimension that's going to be the driver behind everybody's views on this (both on this forum and in the wider world).

There's a financial dimension to just about anything, but this forum should focus on issues for which the financial aspect is paramount. There are other internet forums for political and ethical debate, but I think something like this will distract from the purpose of this forum.

[MSE Martin]

Originally Posted by JayZed

I'm not at all convinced that this is a relevant or appropriate topic for debate on MSE. While it's true that there's a financial impact for the NHS which may be a factor at the policy level, I'm certain that it's the ethical and moral dimension that's going to be the driver behind everybody's views on this (both on this forum and in the wider world).

There's a financial dimension to just about anything, but this forum should focus on issues for which the financial aspect is paramount. There are other internet forums for political and ethical debate, but I think something like this will distract from the purpose of this forum.

I understand your point. And certainly would hope people DONT only vote on financial lines. Yet this is a key aspect of current politics and for me that makes it an appropriate vote. We are currently in a position (from my limited knowledge) of no stature law on this and being driven by judge made precedent.

Most interesting is the fact only 8% of people in the vote (as I write) support the current law. All of this does make it both interesting, and while I admit tangential to finance, still a worthwhile poll.

Martin

[Flickering Ember]

While I think it should be allowed for people who are terminally ill and would otherwise die a slow, painful, humiliating and horrific death, I don't trust our government and the NHS as it is to regulate it properly, eg ensuring vulnerable people are not forced/brainwashed into it, eg putting it into a little old lady's head that she is a burden so she feels guilty and signs up to be euthanised. Or someone who is suicidally depressed....

[JimmyTheWig]

I think the financial aspect of this question is important. It is the only thing that gives me slight reservations.
If someone in sound mind has decided that they have had enough, then I think that is up to them. We would put an animal out of its misery, why not a person? How can we be more humane to an animal?
But my concern is that if this person is costing the NHS lots of money to keep alive, is it going to be in the hospital's interest for that person to decide that enough is enough?
I'm not suggesting there's going to be doctors sat around their bed saying "go on, take this pill, call it a day, do us all a favour...", but I can imagine the situation where the staff may be under pressure to play down chances of survival, etc.

(Cross posted with Flickering Ember, basically saying the same thing!)

[egyptiangirl]

I'm going to be really picky here. Sorry.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are 2 different things. (well that is what my GCSE students have to know!)

Euthanasia is where someone in pain/suffering is 'given' an easy and gentle death. Voluntary Euthanasia being where they still have the ability to 'ask' for this to happen. Non-voluntary Euthanasia is where the person cannot agree however doctors/family make the decision i.e turn off a life support machine.

However, assisted suicide is where someone gives someone the means to kill themselves i.e give them a bottle of morphine to take themselves.

Both assisted suicide and voluntary Euthanasia are illegal in this country however non-voluntary euthanasia is allowed through the principle of 'double effect'.

Sorry to bore!

[BlueAngelCV]

I think when people are seriously ill they should be able to make the choice.

The problem I think comes with what people consider to be seriously ill. Most people accept that someone with end stage cancer is likely to have a poor standard of life. However recently IIRC there was a case fairly recently where a rugby player was injured and ended up completely paralysed. Now I'm sure this will be controversial but I agree that he should have been allowed to kill himself. I should make clear that this was not a whim, he had been paralysed for some time and already attempted to kill himself on a number of occasions.

I am not saying that people should be given a free pass, I think there should be considerable steps to go through before it is allowed, including input from Drs as to quality of life & psychiatrists/psychologists. But if you have a serious physical illness which affects your quality of life then I think it should be an option.

I do not think that it should be available for mental illnesses though.

[Tesco-shopper]

Originally Posted by BlueAngelCV

I am not saying that people should be given a free pass, I think there should be considerable steps to go through before it is allowed, including input from Drs as to quality of life & psychiatrists/psychologists.

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia when someone has a terminal disease and has a poor quality of life. However, I feel that the current situation with abortions (which I am against) is that it is all too easy to get the signatures of two doctors to say that the abortion can go ahead - and would fear that with voluntary euthansia that exactly the same thing would happen with that too, that it would be too easy to get the signatures of the medical profession.

[MiserlyMartin]

I say yes it should. As somebody who lost a member of my family through a delibrate medical overdose which nobody knew they were going to do, I would have rather it was all above board and legal then having the shock of finding out about it like that.

But I know they did not want to suffer pain and a miserable life and I supported the action they took after the shock of loss had gone.

[KATE17]

Folks, the way I see it, the mainstream media simply depict the debate as a terminally ill person making the swift move from (a) facing increasing infirmity and/or pain to (b) making arrangements to end their life.

However, on re-reading the submissions, do you notice how there's no reference in any way to the role of palliative care? By logical inference, it seems, the only altenative to taking one's life, is to endure increasing pain and discomfort until death occurs. However, those working within that branch of medicine are working day and night to ensure that terminally ill patients are free from pain.

The logic of saying that assisted suicide is a wise, considered, dignified choice must inevitably drive us to deny the foundational principles of medical practice [namely, the Hippocratic Oath] and disregard the endeavours of all who work in the medical profession, particularly those who work in the palliative care branch. As such (painfully-twisted) logic thrusts its way through this issue, our only conclusion must be that those who persevere - ie, those who choose not to end their lives - are without "dignity". But is that what we really believe? Is that the lasting legacy we want to pass onto future generations?

[richardc1983]

You wouldnt keep a very sick/in pain animal alive, its cruel, The same should be said for humans.

If they make that decision then yes, but thats not to say that people shud be assisiting all suicidal people as its better to face problems, but in circumstances of very ill health/pain its certainly an option that should be available.

[bookworm1363]

Yes, without a doubt.

I was 16 when I saw my father drag himself from room to room from the pain his cancer was causing him, I saw him lose his hair, his weight, his dignity, everything but his sharp brain which worked to the end and I know that if he had been able to end it himself, he would have. So did the hospital, who wouldn't allow my sister (a nurse) to come and visit him unattended in case she complied with his wishes.

The thing that terrifies me the most is not death, but getting to the point where I won't be able to finish it myself and be trapped in a failing body for years. If that is the case, everyone in my family knows that I want to be helped along. It is my choice, it would have been my father's choice, if we were in a non-responsive coma, someone else would make the decision for us anyway, why shouldn't we be allowed to make that decision ourselves???

My life, my death. And why not?

[00ec25]

Originally Posted by richardc1983

You wouldnt keep a very sick/in pain animal alive, its cruel, The same should be said for humans.

Morally, that stance always seems to me to be based on the fact we lack, or are unwilling to provide, the facilties and/or finance to keep an animal alive, rather than it being "humane", it is a purely economic decision.

After all, its easy to fix a broken leg yet the default for a horse is to immediately shoot it because we think keeping a horse in traction/splits is somehow inhumane. Whereas from my viewpoint, it seems the real underlying decision is a recovered racehorse will never be right again so why spend the money in the first place.

As for ourselves, I would in principle be in favour of assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia, where it is a decison made by the person themselves, but for whatever reason they need physical assistance to carry it out - that rugby player (RIP) being a clear case in my mind. However, I am naturally cynical about how soon it would be before the allegations of inappropriate "use" arose.

[tielle]

Can't help but think that the argument about "cost to the state" could just as easily be applied to having children but then the euthanasia argument isn't a million miles away from the abortion debate... happy to save that for another day though

Anyway, good article in The Times about this topic today, presenting a palliative care point-of-view (available online but I'm not old enough to post links yet so go to the Times website, click Comment and scroll halfway down).

Here is the heart of their argument as well as brief comment from a blog on the article:

-------------
Proposals to allow “assisted dying”, while undoubtedly well intended, have an air of unreality about them that is worrying to anyone who works with seriously ill people. They assume the existence of a perfect world - a world in which all terminally ill people are entirely clear-headed and make life-or-death decisions on completely rational grounds; and a world in which all doctors know their patients well and have limitless time and skill to assess requests for euthanasia.

As Baroness Finley explains, seriously ill patients often alternate between deep depression and times of hope. During the bouts of depression, some may ask for assisted suicide. If given time, many will emerge from the depression with renewed hope. Dr. Finlay also understands that many patients increasingly see themselves as burdens on their loved ones and then feel "hidden pressures" to end their lives in order to free their families from the burdens of care and cost.

More:
Doctors who care for terminally ill people sometimes have the subject of assisted dying raised by patients. In most cases they want assurance that they won't be abandoned and will have care that maintains dignity and addresses their deepest fears. To respond by processing a request for assisted suicide risks sending a signal that the doctor agrees that the patient would be better off dead. We rely on our doctors to act at all times in our best interests. That inevitably gives them a degree of influence, however unintended, over the choices we make about our health.
---------------

I have friends who work in Palliative Care and they often bemoan the fact that the media rarely mention it as a serious area of medicine that can bring dignity to the inevitable. Are the media driving the agenda a little here...?

[Sami_Bee]

Originally Posted by 00ec25

Morally, that stance always seems to me to be based on the fact we lack, or are unwilling to provide, the facilties and/or finance to keep an animal alive, rather than it being "humane", it is a purely economic decision.

After all, its easy to fix a broken leg yet the default for a horse is to immediately shoot it because we think keeping a horse in traction/splits is somehow inhumane. Whereas from my viewpoint, it seems the real underlying decision is a recovered racehorse will never be right again so why spend the money in the first place.

As for ourselves, I would in principle be in favour of assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia, where it is a decison made by the person themselves, but for whatever reason they need physical assistance to carry it out - that rugby player (RIP) being a clear case in my mind. However, I am naturally cynical about how soon it would be before the allegations of inappropriate "use" arose.

I don't think for most loving pet owners the decision to have a pet euthanised is a question of money but of quality of life.
We had our springer put down after she had a severe stroke, she was unable to walk due to loss of use of control in left side of her body, obviously for a human this would not be as bad because they could use a wheelchair and use their other arm for most things.
Given the choice I would rather struggle by for months to pay a large vet bill and have a happy pet than put them down to save some money!

[frgerry]

Just look as what is happening in Holland: everyone carries a 'Please don't kill me' card because there's so much therapeutic killing. Suppose you leave you card at home?It is perfectly possible to have a fulfilling and enjoyable life in the midst of pain and terminal illness. Palliative (pain relief for incurable ilness) care in this country is the best in the world and there is no reason for people to suffer. We seem to think that the terminally ill have nothing to offer either themselves or us. Will we have to do without the inspiring examples of Helen Rollason, Roy Castle, George Melly etc? What is needed is more money and practitioners and a greater awareness of what is available through - for instance hospices. Oh - and perhaps a sense that people are worth something as people, not for what they can produce.

[katchambers]

B - I agree that people who are dying of a painful illness that has no chance of recovery should be allowed to die a painless death - euthanasia, and I hate the idea that doctors have actually been put into prison because one of their patients, begged them to end their suffering, and they allowed them to die painlessly and not have to carry on living for months or years in excruciating pain. It's one of my biggest fears to be in that much pain, and I am sure it is a fear of most people, I know that if someone I loved was in so much pain I would want that pain to go away.

In terms of the money, I don't care at all about that, money does not even come into such a sensitive subject as this.

[TAUNTON]

I agree totally with JayZed.
This is not the forum for this subject.

[teddyco]

Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable in society.

[esuhl]

Two things shock me:

1) A person cannot assist another to commit suicide, so a doctor cannot prescribe a drug with the intention of killing a patient swiftly... But they can "withdraw treatment" and allow the patient to slowly starve whilst suffering in agony from their condition. The humane is prohibited, and the cruel and sadistic enshrined in law.

2) The law is intended to protect individuals from the actions of others. I expect (no, demand!) the right to absolute freedom except where my actions would affect others to their detriment. It is fundamentally immoral to criminalise people who are genuinely trying to minimise suffering. In the words of John Stuart Mill, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

The extent of pain and suffering that anti-euthenasia laws have caused far outweights the potential risks of pro-euthenasia laws being abused, in my humble opinion.