The right to die?

1940sGal

I know there are some crazy debates on here but there are equally some good one's and I enjoy a debate myself so thought I'd start one with this news item.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722

Basically this man fought for the right to end his life and was denied by a court, but has since died (from pneumonia by the looks of it).

What are other people's thoughts on it? Personally I'm not sure I like a court having the power over someone's life in this situation. It's his life and if he's in so much misery as a result of what happened to him, who is anyone to tell him he can't end that misery? This may be a naive view but if suicide is no longer illegal, why is the court blocking his will to die? Is it because he would have to be assisted?

I suppose it does open the proverbial can of worms.

raven83

Personally, if someone is of sound mind and suffering with a terrible debilitating illness then I think it should be up to them if they want to end their life and no one else.

1940sGal

I suppose it must be quite different to someone who wants to take their life because they're depressed or because things aren't going so well. There's always hope of 'curing' someone's depression but in this case his health was never going to get better.

LisaLou1982

He was unable to do anything himself - the only thing he could do was to refuse food and he didnt want to do that as he felt it was cruel and ultimately a last option.

I saw this on the tv last week and cried. I cried more for him and his family when i saw the news today.

The euthanasia laws in this country will never be changed - the court ruled that the decision for this would be down to parliament.

Parliament wont ever pass a bill on such a contraversial subject.

My personal thoughts are somewhere between the two. Do i think a person should be able to make the decision to end their own life if they are suffering? Yes i do. I believe in freedom of choice.

Do i believe that they should be able to ask someone to assist them where they cant do it themselves? - On this im not sure. Who would they ask? Could you do it for someone? We'd all probably like to think that we would do it for someone we loved if they were truely suffering, but when push came to shove would you want to do it? It is murder after all - as the law currently sees it.

However, where someone is ill, and does not wish to continue with treatment, or where the hospital believes that there wouldnt be much point, they will ask the family for their permission to stop further treatment. Is that the same? Some would argue yes.

I was in the unfortunate position where i had to make that decision to stop treatment for my much loved dad. Sadly i also had to tell him what was happening and how long they thought he had as the hospital hadnt told him, despite him telling them time and again that he wanted to be advised of everything. He was such a strong man and hated the unknown. He was glad when he was told and seemed to be at peace. I can understand - i dont fear anything when i know what the outcome is. The unknown drives me crazy. I need the control.

Not a day goes by where i regret what i did - if i had advised them to carry on treatment he would have suffered for a few months and died anyway. I couldnt have put him, or myself through it. As it was, he passed away peacefully with me and my mum by his side and appeared to be in no pain. Lets face it, if it was a pet, you would put them down to save them the misery. Why let a human suffer?

As for me? Well personally for me it would be a fate worse than death to be a prisoner in my own body - but then im not, and how do i know how i would feel if it did happen?

I think the main issue is that if the law were changed, it could open up massive case issues where murder and euthanasia lines are crossed. So, despite my personal feelings, i do think that currently, however sad, its right for them to block the assisted death

1940sGal

I'm sorry to hear of your loss Lisa I have been in a similar situation with my grandparents. And with pets.

The part about assisting is the one thing that leaves me with doubts. I too believe someone should have the right to end their life with dignity but however much I would like to think I would help them, I'm certain I couldn't.

Fire_Fox

I could do it for my parents and my parents could do it for me, my sibling couldn't tho, I suspect they won't be able to make any tough decisions when our parents get old. I've posted on the two Discussion Time threads that my parents have long since written 'living wills' so that their wishes are crystal clear, it's interesting that "Ms Chahal said Mr Nicklinson had made an advanced directive in 2004 refusing any life-sustaining treatment."

IMO a trackable history is the sort of thing that protects the vulnerable from being coerced/ murdered under the guise of assisted suicide, and protects those who are involved from accusations of doing so for their own purposes. Not in any way saying a 'living will' alone should be enough, but it could form part of a paper trail demonstrating that the decision is consistent with their personality or beliefs.

Is there anyone who doesn't believe Tony Nicklinson wanted assisted suicide, that he was in no way coerced? If we can be convinced in this instance why not in others? I wouldn't envisage assisted suicide ever to be easy to access, a body of evidence would have to be presented to a court or medical panel every time.

valkirn

I personally think the law is wrong on this, it was disgusting what that poor man had to go through just because he couldn't do it for himself, you wouldnt keep an animal alive like that so why not give him his dignaty!!

I have the right to die in the manor of my choosing and something like what he had to go through scares the living carp out of me.

And after seeing his struggle i have said to my husband that if i am ever in an accident or something happens to me and the docs have made it clear that if i do pull through i wont be able to do anything for myself i dont want to be resussitated

Lotus-eater

It's a difficult one, who do you trust?

Do you trust the person in pain, the doctors, the relatives, or the spouse who will inherit everything.

As I said, difficult.

1940sGal

Lotus-eater wrote: »

It's a difficult one, who do you trust?

Do you trust the person in pain, the doctors, the relatives, or the spouse who will inherit everything.

As I said, difficult.

That's a controversial thought but I think most would be lying if they said it didn't cross their mind. Would you ever be able to tell?

Anyway, it's way past my bedtime. Hopefully some more will add their thoughts and I'll be interested to see them.

Night folks. Sleep well

raven83

1940sGal wrote: »

That's a controversial thought but I think most would be lying if they said it didn't cross their mind. Would you ever be able to tell?

Anyway, it's way past my bedtime. Hopefully some more will add their thoughts and I'll be interested to see them.

Night folks. Sleep well

This is a good point, but if they was going to die anyway what difference would it make, iyswim. It has to be the person who is suffering that makes the decision, no one else.

paddy's_mum

I believe that it's long past time Parliament looked properly at the laws surrounding this issue, listened to the people and arrived at some sensible, workable rules.

How can it be okay to deny Tony a dignified death but then sanction - and indeed fund! - the destruction of almost 200,000 pregnancies a year in the UK?

How was the case of Tony Bland anything but legalised murder? It's one thing to discontinue medical treatment or drugs but the withdrawal of food and water - the basic necessities of life - is not (as was trumpeted at the time) 'allowing Nature to take her course'. Denying basic sustenance has only one possible outcome and that is death.

Our laws and practises have become seriously outmoded due to the advances in medicine and treatment and I'd like to see the whole issue thoroughly researched, public opinion sought, and intelligent, informed debate taking place.

How come you can kill someone by dangerous driving and serve 2 - 4 years in prison (in effect, get away with it) but if you lovingly or charitably help someone escape their pain, misery and undignified helplessness, you'll get the book thrown at you and probably get a life sentence for murder!

We've got ourselves tied up in knots of law, moralities, best practice ... :mad: