Why assisted death MUST become legal...
- Thread starter Jan Van Quirm
- Start date
Tragic as this case is, the argument here isn't that assisted death must become legal; the argument is that those who do nothing to save the live of someone who chooses to commits suicide should not be prosecuted for manslaughter. There's a huge difference between the two. Mind you, I'm in favor of legalizing both scenarios.
That's what I mean - the situation that man and his surviving wife were put in was intolerable as he tried to suicide several times before he was finally successful, probably doing himself more damage in the process with the car-gassing attempt at least 
It's that kind of situation where relatives behaviour can be construed as criminal when it's not even their choice necessarily that needs firming up with proper, rational and considered legislation. The woman was put on trial but at least she wasn't convicted but the point is she'd obeyed the letter of the law several times already in calling out emergency services to his abortive attempts and it had done absolutely nothing to help her husband's situation and made her feel bad for preventing something he desparately wanted...
It's that kind of situation where relatives behaviour can be construed as criminal when it's not even their choice necessarily that needs firming up with proper, rational and considered legislation. The woman was put on trial but at least she wasn't convicted but the point is she'd obeyed the letter of the law several times already in calling out emergency services to his abortive attempts and it had done absolutely nothing to help her husband's situation and made her feel bad for preventing something he desparately wanted...
Such a sad story and made all the worse by the Doctors refusal to accept there was a problem. My wife has CFS / ME and I know how much stigma there is with this. We eventually got to see a consultant after 18 months and he thinks a lot of the illness is down to a lack of vitamin D. When tested we found that Lisa had a reading of 16 (normal values are 80 - 120). She is currently taking huge doses of vitamin D (under doctors advice) to see if it helps but it could be six months before we find out if this is the answer to a lot of the problems.
I'm really pleased that Terry has got people talking about these things. Whether it will lead to the law being changed, I don't know. But breaking the taboo of talking about these things is a real start.
Jason, I hope the vitamin D helps, I know these vitamin therapies can take a long time to show any real effect.
Jason, I hope the vitamin D helps, I know these vitamin therapies can take a long time to show any real effect.
(((((Purple vibes and hugs))))) to you and your wife Jason. Carers do such a hard job in helping their loved ones simply cope with living with a chronic illness and deserve every bit of support going and more besides :clap:
The 'invisible' illnesses are so hard to live with. All uninformed people (and sadly some professionals who should know better) see - literally - is someone who appears to be in reasonable condition and shouldn't be having problems
The 'invisible' illnesses are so hard to live with. All uninformed people (and sadly some professionals who should know better) see - literally - is someone who appears to be in reasonable condition and shouldn't be having problems
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... chett.html
Motor Neurone sufferer commits suicide after watching TP's programme.
Very brave guy.
Motor Neurone sufferer commits suicide after watching TP's programme.
Very brave guy.
The Handbook's been out there well before Choosing to Die came out - it's nothing to do with the Swiss firm Dignatas featured in the documentary. It's actually obtainable through an Australian website which is spearheaded by an academic who is very vocal on euthanasia all over the world and have published the handbook to give 'reliable and practical' information on how to end your life medically and legally in a 'safe' manner. The site also gives information on legislation in various countries and advice on institutional procedures where euthanasia is not against the law. The idea is so someone can end their life without unnecessary personal suffering or accidently implicating others in their actions that could lead to their being put on trial for not preventing an 'unnecessary' death.
Nothing to do with Terry's documentary or the route taken by the 2 men, Andrew Colgan and Peter Smedley who were filmed before they went to Switzerland and, in Peter's case, during his final hours.
Aside from seeing the documentary and suffering from the same illness (motor neurone disease) as Peter Smedley, this chap took another path towards achieving his own death. Why the Mail then chooses to attach a vid of the 1st 15 mins of Choosing To Die says more about the paucity of their research skills and journalistic values than valid comment on the questions that the inquest was focussing on, namely whether anyone other than Thomas Hobkinson himself had caused his death. He went into his choices and went through with something he wanted to do - end of. He probably watched the Nine O'Clock News more than once during the same period as well and made a conscious decision not to go on a suicide bombing mission to achieve the same thing, so how is watching one documentary 3 months before his suicide (about Dignatas arranged procedures, not shopping for potassium cyanide or whatever it was on the internet) got anything much to do with how he went about securing his wishes. It's still about the choice on when to end life and who should be making it.ray:
Nothing to do with Terry's documentary or the route taken by the 2 men, Andrew Colgan and Peter Smedley who were filmed before they went to Switzerland and, in Peter's case, during his final hours.
Aside from seeing the documentary and suffering from the same illness (motor neurone disease) as Peter Smedley, this chap took another path towards achieving his own death. Why the Mail then chooses to attach a vid of the 1st 15 mins of Choosing To Die says more about the paucity of their research skills and journalistic values than valid comment on the questions that the inquest was focussing on, namely whether anyone other than Thomas Hobkinson himself had caused his death. He went into his choices and went through with something he wanted to do - end of. He probably watched the Nine O'Clock News more than once during the same period as well and made a conscious decision not to go on a suicide bombing mission to achieve the same thing, so how is watching one documentary 3 months before his suicide (about Dignatas arranged procedures, not shopping for potassium cyanide or whatever it was on the internet) got anything much to do with how he went about securing his wishes. It's still about the choice on when to end life and who should be making it.
ray:
Yes, that's my take on it. This is not about doctors or juries deciding that a person's life should be ended, this is about a person in so much pain and suffering that they have the right to be able to say: enough!
Yes, there may or may not be a cure somewhere down the line, but that's hardly comfort to someone whose life is so disrupted by suffering that every day is torture.
Why shouldn't people have the right to decide when they want to go?
Yes, there may or may not be a cure somewhere down the line, but that's hardly comfort to someone whose life is so disrupted by suffering that every day is torture.
Why shouldn't people have the right to decide when they want to go?
Which is why the option to go by assisted death should be out there in a pro-active and easily accessible way so that people who have that kind of 'living death' scenario hanging over them can at least make an informed decision about it before they're in the position where they can no longer make a decision/indicate what their choice is... 
It's common practice now for people with some terminal illnesses to have a 'no resuscitation' clause for surgical procedures including more natural emergencies like heart attacks and strokes and palliative procedures in hospices (talking morphine drips here) also 'ease' a death along in a legally medical environment. Why then are more 'direct' methods so offensive or scary to people who've never been in a position to judge when life is medically intolerable for an individual? You don't know what you'll do until you're there - Terry's said he's not there yet, but he'd like to know what his options are now. That's all. :|
It's getting to be one of those rare situation where human rights legislation could be positively useful and should be debated fully as a basic right at the end of any life. We can make such decisions for beloved pets and be seen as humane so why not for ourselves? I would draw the line at other non-medical people (so relations I suppose) making the decision for you, even (or especially) on behalf of those who are incapable for whatever reason of making a rational/properly informed decision - it's an unpleasant subject but surely it's one that has to be canvassed and supported.
It's common practice now for people with some terminal illnesses to have a 'no resuscitation' clause for surgical procedures including more natural emergencies like heart attacks and strokes and palliative procedures in hospices (talking morphine drips here) also 'ease' a death along in a legally medical environment. Why then are more 'direct' methods so offensive or scary to people who've never been in a position to judge when life is medically intolerable for an individual? You don't know what you'll do until you're there - Terry's said he's not there yet, but he'd like to know what his options are now. That's all. :|
It's getting to be one of those rare situation where human rights legislation could be positively useful and should be debated fully as a basic right at the end of any life. We can make such decisions for beloved pets and be seen as humane so why not for ourselves? I would draw the line at other non-medical people (so relations I suppose) making the decision for you, even (or especially) on behalf of those who are incapable for whatever reason of making a rational/properly informed decision - it's an unpleasant subject but surely it's one that has to be canvassed and supported.
If this is a discussion, it's about whether a person should have the choice or not. In response though, this is something that would also affect society.
When I said Doctors can make mistakes, I was not considering them having the choice, but rather that it happens often enough that medications or injections are given to the wrong patient. I think that should be reason enough.
In fact the article provides another reason why an individual should not have the right to decide. Irrespective of what ever pain he was suffering, he had chronic fatigue - as a result it's highly likely he was suffering from clinical depression where you lose interest and motivation in everything including life. This is something that can be cured, as is sleep deprivation (which I'm sure caused his muscle atrophy). A person suffering from depression is not in a healthy state of mind to make such a decision. (A further point is that a healthy state of mind can be difficult to assess.)
People in all walks of life can face great trials, I think pain being the top of these, and they heroically persevere - often producing people that have gone on to do great things for humanity.
MD
When I said Doctors can make mistakes, I was not considering them having the choice, but rather that it happens often enough that medications or injections are given to the wrong patient. I think that should be reason enough.
In fact the article provides another reason why an individual should not have the right to decide. Irrespective of what ever pain he was suffering, he had chronic fatigue - as a result it's highly likely he was suffering from clinical depression where you lose interest and motivation in everything including life. This is something that can be cured, as is sleep deprivation (which I'm sure caused his muscle atrophy). A person suffering from depression is not in a healthy state of mind to make such a decision. (A further point is that a healthy state of mind can be difficult to assess.)
People in all walks of life can face great trials, I think pain being the top of these, and they heroically persevere - often producing people that have gone on to do great things for humanity.
MD
That argument is rather like saying that abortion shouldn't be allowed because who knows what that foetus may go on to be. It's not really an argument at all because - who knows?
As someone who suffers from chronic clinical depression - and was first diagnosed over 30 years ago, I have to take you to task on your understanding of the condition. Firstly it can not always be cured. Secondly it most certainly does not mean that you lose all perspective over life and death.
But beside that, I go back to my point about why shouldn't people decide when they want to die? Why is life considered so precious that we have to stick with it no matter how much we are suffering?
It's an old argument but a justified one I think: why is it we see putting a beloved pet out of its misery and suffering as an act of kindness, and yet thinking about doing the same thing for a human being is seen as morally wrong? It doesn't add up.
As someone who suffers from chronic clinical depression - and was first diagnosed over 30 years ago, I have to take you to task on your understanding of the condition. Firstly it can not always be cured. Secondly it most certainly does not mean that you lose all perspective over life and death.
But beside that, I go back to my point about why shouldn't people decide when they want to die? Why is life considered so precious that we have to stick with it no matter how much we are suffering?
It's an old argument but a justified one I think: why is it we see putting a beloved pet out of its misery and suffering as an act of kindness, and yet thinking about doing the same thing for a human being is seen as morally wrong? It doesn't add up.
