'Should Assisted Suicide be allowed?' poll discussion

Former_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

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

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

JayZed wrote: »

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

ThinkingOfLinking

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. :rolleyes: 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!:eek:

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

BlueAngelCV wrote: »

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.