The right to die?

BugglyB

1940sGal wrote: »

That's a controversial thought but I think most would be lying if they said it didn't cross their mind.

I do think theres a wider issue of old people and terminally ill people feeling a pressure to 'do the right thing'. What person who needs 24 hour care doesn't feel like a burden at some point or another. That it would be better if they were just out of the way.

I'm uneasy at the idea of doctors 'playing god' - creating life by fertility treatments at one end, ending lives by assisted suicide at the other.

I think the whole thing is fraught with nuance and difficulty and I really hope theres no knee jerk reaction to this latest news.

Lifeforms

There is only a right to die for those able.
For anyone else, who wishes to take their life, they are reliant on someone else doing it.

Time to equal it out

sassyblue

LisaLou1982 wrote: »

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.

I agree with everything in your post Lisa. I guess the difference with the first bit in bold is if the patient is lucid enough to understand. If you're asked to make that decision it usually means that person is unconscious (and thought never to regain consciousness). Which leads me to your second paragraph, how come you had to make the decision to stop treatent for your dad when your father was conscious and understood you when you told him?

Sorry to ask, l'm not meaning to be nosey l just have always known that decision to be made when the patient is unconscious.

BugglyB

paddy's_mum wrote: »

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

Are you saying that law, morality and best practice should have nothing to do with this?

pickpocketlocket

1940sGal wrote: »

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.

Is there always hope of curing depression? Some depression is entirely resistant to treatment - I don't see the difference between that and someone with another debilitating condition.

It is also worth noting that there have been instances of individuals with locked in syndrome making a good recovery. I do believe that individuals should have the right to die, but to state that a particular condition should not fall under that right is quite narrow minded - each case needs to be judged on its own merits.

scooby088

I firmly believe that anyone in their right mind should be allowed to take their own life, but what I find is wrong is asking someone else to perform the burden.

C_Mababejive

I'd like to hear more about the right to live..
1)The right not to be ignored,have medication and nutrition withheld by design or neglect in an NHS hospital
2)The right to have suitable treatment not rationed by NICE or your NHS trust just because of cost.

SailorSam

This man was still relatively young and from the reports we read of his life, he'd led it to the full. Remember the photos of him sky diving. So i think the one thing that this story has done is make people ask is, what would i do if it happend to me ?
In some ways this man was very lucky in so much that he had a loving and supportive family around him. But there have been lots of threads on here with contributions from posters who are completely alone in life. Who would look after them, surely it's more compassionate to let people die if they wanted to.

Fire_Fox

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.

Assisted suicide can never be available on demand without there being risks of covert murder or coercion. Pain is a borderline one as are mental health issues because it is widely accepted that these can alter your thought processes and judgement, pain can cause insomnia and depression and vice versa. It may be pain or mental health issues without physical comorbidities would not be eligible for that reason.

IMO any legislation MUST ensure that quality of life is determined initially by the patient themselves, not by anyone else in their life. Otherwise you are treating them as less than human, as incapable of making their own choices. This could then be backed up by a history in the form of a 'living will', witness statements, reports from two doctors that the condition is permanent and untreatable, the person is mentally capable and fully understands the implication of their decision and so on. Not one flimsy piece of evidence but a dossier: not easy to protect the vulnerable.

Inheritance: there are ways around that. I was discussing this with my mother and said, if assisted suicide became the only way to stop suffering, I would be willing to be cut completely out of the will in order for it to be clear I had no financial motives. The only things I would be bothered about would be photos, maybe a couple of ornaments or low value jewellery which I could 'purchase' from my sibling or they could gift to me one Xmas. Some might leave their assets to the children, but held in trust by the surviving spouse until they reach 25. Not ideal but certainly better than risking imprisonment or risking the assisted suicide being blocked.

HeatherintheHills

This is such a serious issue and we never know when it is going to affect one of us, I'm so glad to see it being discussed.

I'm another who is torn between the right of the person to die with dignity and the implications for someone who has to implement that decision for them.

Tony and Jane Nicklinson were interviewed for the BBC news programme HARDtalk last year and the programme was broadcast again in the early hours today, here is the LINK, it is really worth watching.

What I found really thought provoking was that Tony had been in touch with Dignitas, who make the means of suicide available making it possible for the person involved to carry out for themselves the final action that causes death. In this instance they suggested rigging up a syringe driver that Tony could operate with his head, so he gave himself the lethal injection.

To do that Tony would have had to travel to Switzerland with Jane's help. But by helping him travel Jane could be charged with murder on her return to the UK, something the couple were not prepared to risk.

I was there when my mum die by administering a syringe driver on herself in hospital. She was in very great pain and there was absolutely no hope for her. I was grateful that she was given that option.

To me, Tony Nicklinson's mental anguish, and his incurable condition are not so very different from my mum's situation. But Tony could have lived as he was for many years, in my mum's case it was a matter of maybe a day or so. Is the difference in timescale a valid enough reason to keep him suffering? I have doubts about that.