'Should Assisted Suicide be allowed?' poll discussion

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

richardc1983 wrote: »

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

00ec25 wrote: »

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_2

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.

redglass_2

I was dreading what I might find when I clicked on this thread - I thought it would be full of people pronouncing that anyone who actually wants control over their own pain, and their own death, is 'playing god' (this piety makes no sense at all if, like me, you think there is no god and we just have to get on with it and make the awkward decisions ourselves. And why isn't forcing someone to live also described as 'playing god'?). Anyway, I'm so relieved to see that the thread isn't like that.

The most common worry seems to be that people would be pressured to end their lives, or that financial pressure in hospitals would lead to patients being 'terminated' in order to free up beds, etc.

The idea of the dear little old lady being pushed into ending it all by her greedy relatives is an upsetting one and I don't know if you can ever entirely guard against that happening. On the other hand, I don't see why a real old lady should have to live out her life in pain, against her will, in order to protect an imaginary old lady. And isn't it a bit patronising to assume that anyone who could be described as an 'old lady' has no mind of her own and must be protected like a child? It's never an 'old gent' in these arguments, always this sentimentalised, childish 'old lady'.

As for the fear that there might be pressure in order to free up beds, a) I hope I won't offend anyone by asking what proof we have that such pressures don't operate right now, when medical staff have to decide whether to turn off life-support, and b) if terminally ill people were allowed to end their sufferings legally there might not be so much pressure on resources in the first place....

I myself am not far off being an 'old lady'. I don't want a lot of pain at the end of my life and I don't want anyone else making the decision for me. It is nobody's business as much as mine - nobody's. Especially not 'compassionate' religious types who can watch someone die slowly of cancer while talking of god's will - keep them far away from me, please!