Assisted Suicide

[Betty Boop]

Just wondered what people's thoughts were on Assisted Suicide? I was listening to an article on Five Live, where a guy who was paralysed from the neck down was describing his quality of life. The guy basically wants to die, and has signed up with Dignitas in Switzerland, who help terminally ill and severely disabled people end their lives. I can't think of anything more distressing than having to fly to a foreign country to end your life, rather than in your own familiar surroundings. I know it is illegal here, but surely it is time to change the law in such extreme cases? :dunno:

[Jay]

Just wondered what people's thoughts were on Assisted Suicide? I was listening to an article on Five Live, where a guy who was paralysed from the neck down was describing his quality of life. The guy basically wants to die, and has signed up with Dignitas in Switzerland, who help terminally ill and severely disabled people end their lives. I can't think of anything more distressing than having to fly to a foreign country to end your life, rather than in your own familiar surroundings. I know it is illegal here, but surely it is time to change the law in such extreme cases? :dunno:

I agree. I know there are arguments against it but I think people should be able to choose when they die. The people we are talking about are so far gone (usually just their bodys though) they cannot do it themselves. It must be a daily torture for them to be alive.

I know there are arguments that we cant play God etc and I wouldn't advocate choosing for people who cannot state their wishes or have not stated their wishes earlier when they knew how ill they would become but for people of sound mind asking for help to end their suffering when they get to a certain stage of their illness its a sin that the law wont let them die and they have to travel abroad.

[McSwanky]

It's a minefield, this one. In this country, if someone is being kept alive by medication, they can choose to refuse it (essentially choosing to die), however if they do not need medical assistance to stay alive (even thought thye may be in great pain every day with no hope for recovery) there seems to be nothing they can do.

So should there not be a level playing field for all people with terminal illnesses?

You can be sure, though, that if the law was changed in this country to allow assisted suicide or giving people the 'right to die', it would only be a matter of time before the law was perceived to have been abused by friends or family to their own ends.

There's no right answer to this one IMO, and I can see it from both sides. It's a debate that will no doubt carry on for ever regardless of the law.

[Jay]

It's a minefield, this one. In this country, if someone is being kept alive by medication, they can choose to refuse it (essentially choosing to die), however if they do not need medical assistance to stay alive (even thought thye may be in great pain every day with no hope for recovery) there seems to be nothing they can do.

So should there not be a level playing field for all people with terminal illnesses?

You can be sure, though, that if the law was changed in this country to allow assisted suicide or giving people the 'right to die', it would only be a matter of time before the law was perceived to have been abused by friends or family to their own ends.
There's no right answer to this one IMO, and I can see it from both sides. It's a debate that will no doubt carry on for ever regardless of the law.


I agree that this is the worry. People ridding themselves of 'burdens' etc, possible financial gain etc. This is why I think the first steps could be taken to allow people who can state their own wishes or have previously been able to communicate their wishes to chose when they want an end to their life.

Its a whole different ball game when other have to choose for them. It opens a huge can of worms and one I dont think we can address until we have allowed the first steps to have been taken.

[Pretty Boy]

It's a tough one this. On the one side if someone with a degenerative illness, paralysis or so on can convince doctors in full sanity that they want to die then i can see the point.

On the flip side could it be assured that there wouldn't be abuse of this system by families/carers for freedom from responsibility or financial gain. It would certainly be a sad indication of where society is headed if something like this did happen.

On another note where is the line drawn? A clinic in Holland,i think, recently helped a man with depression end his life. In my view this is totally wrong, whilst depression is a horrible illness with far reaching consequences, it is treatable and should, IMO, not be a valid reason for assisted suicide.

An absolute minefield this one which will unfortunately always be a debate dominated by fanatics on one side and tragic cases on the other, we can only hope someone can propose a sensible, open debate reagrding this issue and give clear, decent reasons for any decision taken.

[Sir David Gray]

I am sympathetic to the views of people who say it should be introduced in this country as I can understand why some people want to die rather than suffer pain etc.

I haven't got any personal experience of dealing with, or personally knowing, anyone who has a severe illness/disease so my views may change if I do come across someone who fits that description but at the moment, I am very much against legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide.

I just think that to ask someone to help you to die is unworkable in most circumstances and i'm not even sure that I could do that with someone that I love. I also don't think that doctors should be put in that position because at the end of the day their job is primarily to preserve life, to help people and even with terminally ill patients their role is to make them as comfortable as possible and I just think that helping a patient to end their life goes against that principle.

I have no problems with someone refusing treatment for an illness even if refusing the treatment speeds up the patient's death (i.e. someone with cancer refusing chemotherapy or someone with kidney failure refusing dialysis and so on), so long as the patient is mentally aware of the decision they are making and conscious of the consequences.

[--------]

It's a minefield, this one. In this country, if someone is being kept alive by medication, they can choose to refuse it (essentially choosing to die), however if they do not need medical assistance to stay alive (even thought thye may be in great pain every day with no hope for recovery) there seems to be nothing they can do.

So should there not be a level playing field for all people with terminal illnesses?

You can be sure, though, that if the law was changed in this country to allow assisted suicide or giving people the 'right to die', it would only be a matter of time before the law was perceived to have been abused by friends or family to their own ends.

There's no right answer to this one IMO, and I can see it from both sides. It's a debate that will no doubt carry on for ever regardless of the law.

You bet. Think of some of the folks you know - would you trust them with your life, especially if they stood to gain? I wouldn't.

Whenever this debate comes up it puts me in mind of a couple of lines of Byron's : "Sweet is a legacy, and passing sweet/ the unexpected death of some old lady...."

Byron was a cynical so-an-so, but in my experience you can never go far wrong being cynical about people's motives.... :devil:



I agree that this is the worry. People ridding themselves of 'burdens' etc, possible financial gain etc. This is why I think the first steps could be taken to allow people who can state their own wishes or have previously been able to communicate their wishes to chose when they want an end to their life.

Its a whole different ball game when other have to choose for them. It opens a huge can of worms and one I dont think we can address until we have allowed the first steps to have been taken.


I don't see how we can morally or ethically (or safely) allow anyone other than the sufferer him/herself to make the decision, Jill.

IMO it would have to be clear that the patient had made his/her own decision to end his/her life, freely, rationally, and entirely without coercion.

I would also say that it should be firmly established that the person assisting should not have been coerced into doing so against his or her will or conscience. No moral blackmail, in other words.

And I would also say that if it were proved that money had changed hands, then the death should automatically treated as homicide and the 'assister' prosecuted accordingly.

I can think of examples which I wouldn't want to see used as test cases, but where an 'assist' would certainly be understandable, and even forgivable.

I think. :hmmm:

[Jay]

I don't see how we can morally or ethically (or safely) allow anyone other than the sufferer him/herself to make the decision, Jill.

IMO it would have to be clear that the patient had made his/her own decision to end his/her life, freely, rationally, and entirely without coercion.

I would also say that it should be firmly established that the person assisting should not have been coerced into doing so against his or her will or conscience. No moral blackmail, in other words.

And I would also say that if it were proved that money had changed hands, then the death should automatically treated as homicide and the 'assister' prosecuted accordingly.

I can think of examples which I wouldn't want to see used as test cases, but where an 'assist' would certainly be understandable, and even forgivable.

I think. :hmmm:


I agree with every word Doddie. I dont think anyone should be able to make the choice for someone else - hard as that wold be in some cases but its not a choice others should be able to make.

Its a huge minefield as said before but while we all tippy toe round it some people are suffering terribly in the knowledge of whats coming to them and they cant do anything to stop it happening.

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't think it is possible to kill another person without doing some damage to yourself. Even people who return from wars where they killed enemy soldiers who were threatening their homes - deep down they are scarred by the experience of taking another human being's life.

As for the suffering that people cite as a reason for suicide, this is usually (probably always) the result of years of medication aimed at blocking out smaller sufferings. Suicide is just another attempt to block the pain, which always has a useful purpose (e.g., when you burn yourself on the fire). Trouble is, if there is life after death, what greater suffering are these people creating for themselves? Better to face the pain rather than keep running from it.

[Betty Boop]

The guy I heard on the radio this morning who was paralysed from the neck down, had been bed-ridden for 20 years. His quality of life according to him was like being confined to life imprisonment, along with spasms he suffered from massive bed-sores, had to be fed, bed-bathed, and had to have his carer hold a cigarette to his mouth while he had a puff. Surely it is the guys right to decide when he decides enough is enough, we don't let animals suffer, so why should humans.

[AllyF]

I'd like to see it legalised on the grounds that there were officials/witnesses there to confirm that it was solely the person in question who had chosen to die and that their choice was not influenced any one else. There must be a way to make euthanasia legal without corruption.

[--------]

The guy I heard on the radio this morning who was paralysed from the neck down, had been bed-ridden for 20 years. His quality of life according to him was like being confined to life imprisonment, along with spasms he suffered from massive bed-sores, had to be fed, bed-bathed, and had to have his carer hold a cigarette to his mouth while he had a puff. Surely it is the guys right to decide when he decides enough is enough, we don't let animals suffer, so why should humans.


I feel extremely uneasy about the whole subject, but until one has been in that man's position one can't possibly judge him.

There but for the grace of God....

[MrRobot]

I think it should be legalised.

When a dog becomes paralysed, it's put down straight away. If a human wants to end their life due to lack of quality(paralysyed, crippiling disease that will cause years of pain) then they should be allowed IMO.

[Bayern Bru]

It's one law for animals, one for humans, right? It's because we're not considered to be on the same level.

Personally, i think someone should have the choice.
Although as someone previously said, it's impossible to comment without being in the position yourself, but I'd hate to be suffering, or kept alive by machines for a number of years.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Obviously it must be the persons own rational decision. I agree with it wholeheartedly and have discussed it many times with the missus. She has been told not to worry that I shall certainly assist her. For me, it will depend if we have won the Scottish. If so, give me a pill and let me die happy, if not, keep me going for another year just in case!!!!

[EskbankHibby]

Should be legalised IMO, with stringent guidelines.

The example given is of a poor guy with a spinal cord injury who has no conitive deficit but no quality of life. He has came to the conclusion that he would like to end his life and he should have that choice.

The grey area would be deciding who to exclude.

People who are cognitively impaired be it permanently (learning difficulties etc) or temporarily (depression etc) should IMO, not have the choice as it could be argued that it is effectively not an informed choice.

Difficulty then is how do you measure level of impairment? Is there a threshold? What is that threshold?

[Betty Boop]

Documentary on tonight about Dignitas and Craig Ewert's decision to end his life in Switzerland, he was suffering from Motor Neurones Disease.

[Hibby_Ed]

I'd agree with it in the sense that of course people should hae the choice to do so if they're life is not 'worth living'. But the issue is what actually defines what is 'worth living' and what is not. Also are these people in a fit state of mind to make this decision such as people with a mental illness. I think on the whole it should be legal but with strict and concise guidelines.

[hibsbollah]

Another problem is if you made suicide easily accessible, a large number of people would take that unreversible step that otherwise might later in life regret their decision. Somewhere between a third and half of the population suffer some kind of depression episode in their lives, usually caused by severe loss. I don't know the stats but im guessing a good number of these people would consider committing suicide if the option was easily available to them (or they had access to a fully loaded gun). The majority of these people probably would also recover to lead happy lives, given treatment.

For that reason alone, i'd want any part-legalisation to be very strictly controlled, and only available to certain groups of very ill people.

edit-i noticed Ed has just made a very similar post above!

[Hibby_Ed]

Another problem is if you made suicide easily accessible, a large number of people would take that unreversible step that otherwise might later in life regret their decision. Somewhere between a third and half of the population suffer some kind of depression episode in their lives, usually caused by severe loss. I don't know the stats but im guessing a good number of these people would consider committing suicide if the option was easily available to them (or they had access to a fully loaded gun). The majority of these people probably would also recover to lead happy lives, given treatment.

For that reason alone, i'd want any part-legalisation to be very strictly controlled, and only available to certain groups of very ill people.

edit-i noticed Ed has just made a very similar post above!


Doubt they'd regret it if they have already chosen suicide :wink:

[Onceinawhile]

the problem is we keep people alive so that they dont die, not so that they stay alive:grr:

[--------]

Hospitals aren't geared to care for terminally-ill patients, or for patients who're just going to stay as they are, not getting better, not getting worse, just sufffering. That's not to condemn the staff in hospitals, just to recognise that everything they do is geared towards getting someone well enough to go home. That's how they judge success. Dealing with a patient's approaching death, or helping someone who's likely to live for a long time without ever getting better, aren't situations they're trained or equipped to deal with.

It's not necessarily the illness that causes depression and despair; it's more likely to be the pain and discomfort that comes with the illness.

We should be encouraging and extending the hospice movement - St Andrew's Hospice in Airdrie does wonderful work in caring for terminally-ill patients, but the demand for places way exceeds the number of places available.

We should be encouraging and extending the work of the MacMillan Nurses - these lassies are trained to care for people in a very special way.

I've known people who were suicidal before getting access to MacMillan/hospice care who found meaning and purpose and the capacity to go on with their lives after receiving that care. If you haven't seen it, you wouldn't believe the difference that specialist hospice care can make to a person's state of mind and body.

In addition, I think that if someone (before the event) decides consciously, freely and rationally that they do not want to be resuscitated from a vegetative state, then that decision should be respected. But it HAS to be their own decision.

I'm not so sure about 'living wills' or assisted suicide, simply because I don't trust human beings ot to find a way to use such things to justify the murder of elderly relatives for the sake of the inheritance. And you can't trust doctors' 'professionalism' to safeguard their patients - Harold Shipman was a doctor, after all, and I don't believe he was the only one of HIS kind.

But equally I can't judge anyone who has been diagnosed as suffering from a degenerative disease like MS or Parkinson's, scared of what's coming to them, wanting some sort of reassurane that someone, at some point, will act to spare them the worst their illness can inflict on them.

There but for the grace of God....

[New Corrie]

I think the facility should be available for people to end thier lives if they choose to do so. there is an awful lot of pain, depression, misery and suffering out there, and if people want a way out then it should be there for them. Sometimes no amount of medicine, councelling etc etc can alleviate people's pain/despair, therefore to save them jumping in front of trains etc, a humane exit should be provided for them.

No doubt as usual we will end up pandering to the pro life religious types. Their sanctimony knows no bounds. I don't mind them putting a high price on their own existences (even though it baffles me) but, I do take great exception to them putting such a high price on everyone elses lives.

[da-robster]

Another problem is if you made suicide easily accessible, a large number of people would take that unreversible step that otherwise might later in life regret their decision. Somewhere between a third and half of the population suffer some kind of depression episode in their lives, usually caused by severe loss. I don't know the stats but im guessing a good number of these people would consider committing suicide if the option was easily available to them (or they had access to a fully loaded gun). The majority of these people probably would also recover to lead happy lives, given treatment.

For that reason alone, i'd want any part-legalisation to be very strictly controlled, and only available to certain groups of very ill people.

edit-i noticed Ed has just made a very similar post above!

I think it would have to be someting like the other posters have siad there would have to be 2 or so trained witnesses to decide wheather there was any chance of recovery. Although how do you stop someone from commiting suicide you can't exactly reposses their home if I walked onto the forth road bridge to commit suicide no one could stop me.

[Sylar]

Documentary on tonight about Dignitas and Craig Ewert's decision to end his life in Switzerland, he was suffering from Motor Neurones Disease.

We have a professor of English literature up here at Dundee Uni (not my field of expertise, but my fiance has been lectured by him on many an occassion) who has the same disease, and has had this disease for nearly 20 years now. I guess it comes in various degrees of severity, but he is still very able to get out of the house, conduct lectures and attend conferences, allbeit, via the aid of a wheelchair. He had a specially equiped ground floor office built for him earlier this year.

He engaged in a discussion on the matter once, and found the whole concept of assisted suicide a very bizarre one. As someone who suffers from the same horrible disease, he couldn't understand why people would wish to end their lives so abruptly, rather than living it til it's end, and trying to optomise the time they have before succumbing to the inevitable. His case doesn't sound so severe as Craig Ewert, who seems severely crippled by this disease right enough.

The thing about this particular case which I have an issue with, is the desire to document it and broadcast it as a television show. I think this is very distasteful, and certainly not something i'll be choosing to watch. I'm aware the show will highlight how grim the circumstances behind Mr Ewert's decision have been, but this feels like a case of "sensationalising" the concept of assisted suicide.

There are also the feelings I harbor from a Catholic standpoint, but I guess that's a different discussion altogether.

[Sir David Gray]

I think the facility should be available for people to end thier lives if they choose to do so. there is an awful lot of pain, depression, misery and suffering out there, and if people want a way out then it should be there for them. Sometimes no amount of medicine, councelling etc etc can alleviate people's pain/despair, therefore to save them jumping in front of trains etc, a humane exit should be provided for them.

No doubt as usual we will end up pandering to the pro life religious types. Their sanctimony knows no bounds. I don't mind them putting a high price on their own existences (even though it baffles me) but, I do take great exception to them putting such a high price on everyone elses lives.

Surely the whole point of this debate is about people who are so badly disabled, they aren't able to commit suicide themselves so need the assistance of others to help end their life? Which would therefore mean that jumping in front of a train, or a similar method of dying, would be impossible.

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't agree with assisted suicide at all, however I can just about understand and sympathise with people who wish to die because they have something like Motor Neurone Disease or are paralysed from the neck down. But I certainly don't agree with people being given help to die if they have an illness such as depression. As traumatic as that can be, it is something that can normally be overcome with a degree of intense treatment from professionals and the person is then usually able to carry on with life as normal.

We will never be able to stop some people who are seriously unhappy and depressed from taking their own life. It is unfortunate and incredibly tragic that they feel dying is the only way to sort their problems. However it is their own actions and it's almost impossible to prevent someone from overdosing on medication, throwing themselves in front of a train/bus, hanging themselves etc. However I strongly disagree with providing a service that helps people to die.

[--------]

I think the facility should be available for people to end thier lives if they choose to do so. there is an awful lot of pain, depression, misery and suffering out there, and if people want a way out then it should be there for them. Sometimes no amount of medicine, councelling etc etc can alleviate people's pain/despair, therefore to save them jumping in front of trains etc, a humane exit should be provided for them.

No doubt as usual we will end up pandering to the pro life religious types. Their sanctimony knows no bounds. I don't mind them putting a high price on their own existences (even though it baffles me) but, I do take great exception to them putting such a high price on everyone elses lives.


Thanks, corrie.

I'm so glad you're not one to jump to unwarranted conclusions, or maybe even adopt a simplistic resposne to a very complex problem....

I shall remember to curb my sanctimony in future. :cool2:

[New Corrie]

Thanks, corrie.

I'm so glad you're not one to jump to unwarranted conclusions, or maybe even adopt a simplistic resposne to a very complex problem....

I shall remember to curb my sanctimony in future. :cool2:

And who is making it a very complex problem? The very people who put such a high price on life. A friend of mine lost two of his kids in a road accident, now he doesn't want to be here anymore, he can't cope, he doesn't have the stomach to jump off a bridge, but would opt out in a humane fashion if it were possible, very sad case, but that's what the man wants. What he doesn't want is people telling him that life is a gift and that his kids are at peace and in a better place. So there is the tragic despair scenario of which I am sure you will have a lot more experience of than I have. As for the illness scenario, well I am at a total loss as to why we have to endure watching people suffer no end of pain and suffering when they would far rather be out of their misery. Simplistic maybe Doddie, but I think that a lot of folks would do well to remember that not everyone shares an unrealistic inflated valuation of life.

[--------]

And who is making it a very complex problem? The very people who put such a high price on life. A friend of mine lost two of his kids in a road accident, now he doesn't want to be here anymore, he can't cope, he doesn't have the stomach to jump off a bridge, but would opt out in a humane fashion if it were possible, very sad case, but that's what the man wants. What he doesn't want is people telling him that life is a gift and that his kids are at peace and in a better place. So there is the tragic despair scenario of which I am sure you will have a lot more experience of than I have. As for the illness scenario, well I am at a total loss as to why we have to endure watching people suffer no end of pain and suffering when they would far rather be out of their misery. Simplistic maybe Doddie, but I think that a lot of folks would do well to remember that not everyone shares an unrealistic inflated valuation of life.



The day that we as a society stop putting a high value on human life is the day we cease to be 'civilised' in any sense of the word.

Putting a high value on human life is what prevents us from killing old people; disabled people; people who have skins of a different colour to our own; people who talk funny; people with funny names; people who have different beliefs from us; people whose houses, cars, money, possessions we want to take for our own.... In fact, anyone we take a dislike to.

So no, I won't apologise for placing a high value on human life. Nor for resisting ideas that will erode society's valuation of human life. I would have thught that after the Gulag, Bosnia, Cambodia and the Holocaust we might have have learned our lesson by now.

And yes, I have to deal with folks suffering bereavement - bereavement is a natural part of human life, one that comes to us all. Losing children is a horrid thing to experience, and your friend has all my sympathy. I know from experience that he may find ways to cope, but he'll never forget his kids and the pain will be with him till the end of his life.

But have you thought that perhaps to say that life is a gift, and that the bairns are at peace and in a better place, is telling him the simple truth?

Or that the people who are telling him that are doing so because they care about him and his pain and grief? Or even that time heals, and that one day life may very well be worth living again, even with the memories and the pain? Or even that simply being there for the guy, and supporting him and showing him that you care a little more than just to agree in his desire to die, might perhaps lead him to something like healing?

Grief, remember, is what we get when we find the courage to love someone. The only way to avoid grief is not to allow yourself to love at all. But living wthout loving - that's not much of a life, is it?

And how do we frame laws that will allow what YOU want, but protect the lives of patients who don't want to be "euthanised", but whose weakening state leaves them vulnerable to hospital managers looking to free up beds or to the families looking to inherit before the Social Services Department takes the last of the money to pay for full-time care? Or just protect them from people who don't care and don't value their lives as highly as they do themselves?

And this bit - "As for the illness scenario, well I am at a total loss as to why we have to endure watching people suffer no end of pain and suffering when they would far rather be out of their misery."

Whose pain are you really concerned for, corrie - the patient's pain, or your own discomfort at having to deal with someone in such pain? I know it's not easy to support and help someone grieving the loss of two children, but we need to be careful lest our difficulty in doing so leads us to look for an easier, emotionally less costly, but ultimately wrong way out.

And then you say, "a lot of folks would do well to remember that not everyone shares an unrealistic inflated valuation of life."

Do you REALLY think I'm not aware of that? The world is FULL of people who put little or no value on any human life. Some of them are found guilty of murder and locked up in prison, or even executed. Some of them are in Parliament. Some of them work in the Health Service, or the police. Some of them live very close to you, in your street. Maybe you're one of them - you seem to be saying that you are.

If it's unrealistic to be aware that life can only be taken, never returned, then I guess I'm unrealistic. If it's unrealistic to believe that even when life seems to be as dark as it possibly can be, recovery IS possible and thngs CAN get better, then I'm unrealistic.

I feel very uncomfortable with what you said here: "No doubt as usual we will end up pandering to the pro life religious types. Their sanctimony knows no bounds. I don't mind them putting a high price on their own existences (even though it baffles me) but, I do take great exception to them putting such a high price on everyone elses lives."

I'm really not sure about either where you're coming from, or where you're going to in that statement. But it sounds awfully intolerant of people who don't agree with you, and in the present context that worries me a great deal.

I would not judge or condemn anyone who decides to take his or her own life - the darkness of the place where that decision becomes reasonable is beyond the understanding of most of the human race. Nor would I judge the pain of someone whose loved on seeks to end his or her own life, or even asks for help to do so. that must be truly dreadful.

I have no easy answers. All I know is that a knee-jerk reaction (just pass a law to let it happen) is simplistic and uncaring and will ultimately lead to greater wrong and more dreadful pain than you or I can imagine.

Sorry ofr the length of this.

[New Corrie]

The day that we as a society stop putting a high value on human life is the day we cease to be 'civilised' in any sense of the word.

Putting a high value on human life is what prevents us from killing old people; disabled people; people who have skins of a different colour to our own; people who talk funny; people with funny names; people who have different beliefs from us; people whose houses, cars, money, possessions we want to take for our own.... In fact, anyone we take a dislike to.

So no, I won't apologise for placing a high value on human life. Nor for resisting ideas that will erode society's valuation of human life. I would have thught that after the Gulag, Bosnia, Cambodia and the Holocaust we might have have learned our lesson by now.

And yes, I have to deal with folks suffering bereavement - bereavement is a natural part of human life, one that comes to us all. Losing children is a horrid thing to experience, and your friend has all my sympathy. I know from experience that he may find ways to cope, but he'll never forget his kids and the pain will be with him till the end of his life.

But have you thought that perhaps to say that life is a gift, and that the bairns are at peace and in a better place, is telling him the simple truth?

Or that the people who are telling him that are doing so because they care about him and his pain and grief? Or even that time heals, and that one day life may very well be worth living again, even with the memories and the pain? Or even that simply being there for the guy, and supporting him and showing him that you care a little more than just to agree in his desire to die, might perhaps lead him to something like healing?

Grief, remember, is what we get when we find the courage to love someone. The only way to avoid grief is not to allow yourself to love at all. But living wthout loving - that's not much of a life, is it?

And how do we frame laws that will allow what YOU want, but protect the lives of patients who don't want to be "euthanised", but whose weakening state leaves them vulnerable to hospital managers looking to free up beds or to the families looking to inherit before the Social Services Department takes the last of the money to pay for full-time care? Or just protect them from people who don't care and don't value their lives as highly as they do themselves?

And this bit - "As for the illness scenario, well I am at a total loss as to why we have to endure watching people suffer no end of pain and suffering when they would far rather be out of their misery."

Whose pain are you really concerned for, corrie - the patient's pain, or your own discomfort at having to deal with someone in such pain? I know it's not easy to support and help someone grieving the loss of two children, but we need to be careful lest our difficulty in doing so leads us to look for an easier, emotionally less costly, but ultimately wrong way out.

And then you say, "a lot of folks would do well to remember that not everyone shares an unrealistic inflated valuation of life."

Do you REALLY think I'm not aware of that? The world is FULL of people who put little or no value on any human life. Some of them are found guilty of murder and locked up in prison, or even executed. Some of them are in Parliament. Some of them work in the Health Service, or the police. Some of them live very close to you, in your street. Maybe you're one of them - you seem to be saying that you are.

If it's unrealistic to be aware that life can only be taken, never returned, then I guess I'm unrealistic. If it's unrealistic to believe that even when life seems to be as dark as it possibly can be, recovery IS possible and thngs CAN get better, then I'm unrealistic.

I feel very uncomfortable with what you said here: "No doubt as usual we will end up pandering to the pro life religious types. Their sanctimony knows no bounds. I don't mind them putting a high price on their own existences (even though it baffles me) but, I do take great exception to them putting such a high price on everyone elses lives."

I'm really not sure about either where you're coming from, or where you're going to in that statement. But it sounds awfully intolerant of people who don't agree with you, and in the present context that worries me a great deal.

I would not judge or condemn anyone who decides to take his or her own life - the darkness of the place where that decision becomes reasonable is beyond the understanding of most of the human race. Nor would I judge the pain of someone whose loved on seeks to end his or her own life, or even asks for help to do so. that must be truly dreadful.

I have no easy answers. All I know is that a knee-jerk reaction (just pass a law to let it happen) is simplistic and uncaring and will ultimately lead to greater wrong and more dreadful pain than you or I can imagine.

Sorry ofr the length of this.

Please don't apologise about the length of the post, it was as expected, very well put together and as usual makes a lot of sense as opposed to my simplistic, bitter rantings. I should really refrain from these topics, I just don't like seeing good people suffering, but then I suppose, who does?

[--------]

Please don't apologise about the length of the post, it was as expected, very well put together and as usual makes a lot of sense as opposed to my simplistic, bitter rantings. I should really refrain from these topics, I just don't like seeing good people suffering, but then I suppose, who does?


Look, I'm not trying to dictate - I know exactly the sort of people you were talking about - the sort who parade outside abortion clinics bullying wee girls. I don't like them any mre than you do.

No one contemplates suicide unless they're in a very dark place indeed. The trouble with beibg in dark places is that sometimes the darkness prevents us from seeing things as they really are. Our judgement is clouded and we may get things terribly wrong.

The strongest argument against suicide is the horrendous hurt it causes the people one leaves behind. It's the wrong way to put it, but sometimes I feel that the suicide opts out of grieving and passes the pain on to the people who grieve for him - which is totally unfair, I know, because to come to the place of not wanting to exist, you have to be in horrendous pain yourself.

So I don't judge. I just say we need to be very very careful about how we change our laws about this. The weak and helpless ones need to be protected. There are a lot of very dangerous people out there, I tell you.