Assisted Suicide

[da-robster]

On the way to the match today my dad was listening to radio 4 and there was an intresting debate show about assisted suicide. I've also heard about the Mrs Purdie case and the lords said the law needed clarification.
So I think it's time for a new debate on the matter.(On here :wink: :greengrin)

[lyonhibs]

This is an absolute no brainer, as long as the suicidee is in a good state of mind to give consent, isn't under duress and all the legal procedures are followed. When people have a low - and likely to only get lower - I feel they should have the right to end their own life in a manner of their choosing, instead of undergoing aggressive treatment that - for terminal cases - will merely serve to prolong the suffering for a minimal improvement (if any) in quality of life.

Potential for a good debate here.

[Twa Cairpets]

If one assumes that an individual should pretty much be in charge of their own body, assisted suicide shoul dbe entirely legal. To die with a bit of dignity, to avoid the stress and suffering of those closest to the person, and to allow all concerned to plan, preapre for and understand what is going to happen seems to me to be a humane (and human) thing to do.

I think it has to be regulated somehow though - not quite sure on how this would be done, but there have to be safeguards to ensure that it is the patients choice, and no-one elses.

[Sir David Gray]

Whilst I have the greatest sympathy with anyone who is going through a terminal illness, I am totally opposed to any attempts that are aimed at legalising assisted suicide in this country.

I do not believe that the role of a doctor is to assist in the death of a patient. A doctor's job is to treat the patient and help them get better or, in the case of terminally ill patients, it's to make them as comfortable as possible until they pass away naturally.

However, I do believe that someone should have the right to refuse potentially life saving treatment (such as chemotherapy or a heart bypass), even if their decision brings about their premature death.

[ArabHibee]

Whilst I have the greatest sympathy with anyone who is going through a terminal illness, I am totally opposed to any attempts that are aimed at legalising assisted suicide in this country.

I do not believe that the role of a doctor is to assist in the death of a patient. A doctor's job is to treat the patient and help them get better or, in the case of terminally ill patients, it's to make them as comfortable as possible until they pass away naturally.

However, I do believe that someone should have the right to refuse potentially life saving treatment (such as chemotherapy or a heart bypass), even if their decision brings about their premature death.

But people do already have the right to refuse this treatment. The difference at the moment is that they then have to live their remaining days (probably) in discomfort and complete agony when if assisted suicide was legalised they could end their life in dignity. Don't get me wrong, it would have to be rigourously monitored but I could think of nothing worse than having to go abroad to have the right to die the way I wanted to, instead of in your own country with your family beside you.

[Twa Cairpets]

Whilst I have the greatest sympathy with anyone who is going through a terminal illness, I am totally opposed to any attempts that are aimed at legalising assisted suicide in this country.

I do not believe that the role of a doctor is to assist in the death of a patient. A doctor's job is to treat the patient and help them get better or, in the case of terminally ill patients, it's to make them as comfortable as possible until they pass away naturally.

However, I do believe that someone should have the right to refuse potentially life saving treatment (such as chemotherapy or a heart bypass), even if their decision brings about their premature death.

So you support passive choice of the right to die, but not the active choice?

Its ok to do nothing to die, but its not ok to do something to die?

I think this is a very thin dividing line. Essentially, you belive that you can refuse to take drugs or treatment that will have the result of making you die faster and in great pain, but you cant take different drugs or treatment that will allow you to die more quickly, without pain and with some personal dignity?

Sorry Falkirk, dont see how you can justify the morality of your response on any level.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I am opposed to it. It opens up such a big can of worms.

Take Abortion. It was introduced as a measure for cases where the mother was at harm/rape victims ie Extreme cases. Now it is being used as a method of contraception.

How do you police assisted suicide? There will be people forced into this decision so that their family can get money etc etc

I do have greatest sympathy for those suffering a terminal illness that they do not wish to endure any longer, but the introduction of assisted suicide will have far reaching implications.

[Twa Cairpets]

I am opposed to it. It opens up such a big can of worms.

Take Abortion. It was introduced as a measure for cases where the mother was at harm/rape victims ie Extreme cases. Now it is being used as a method of contraception.

How do you police assisted suicide? There will be people forced into this decision so that their family can get money etc etc

I do have greatest sympathy for those suffering a terminal illness that they do not wish to endure any longer, but the introduction of assisted suicide will have far reaching implications.

I agree with the concern regarding forcing people into the position - that would be abhorrent. But just because it is difficult to legislate doesnt make the concept wrong.

[ArabHibee]

I am opposed to it. It opens up such a big can of worms.

Take Abortion. It was introduced as a measure for cases where the mother was at harm/rape victims ie Extreme cases. Now it is being used as a method of contraception.

How do you police assisted suicide? There will be people forced into this decision so that their family can get money etc etc

I do have greatest sympathy for those suffering a terminal illness that they do not wish to endure any longer, but the introduction of assisted suicide will have far reaching implications.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Do you have any facts to follow that up?

[GlesgaeHibby]

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Do you have any facts to follow that up?

Just look at the sheer numbers of abortions being carried out every year.

Even though we are more educated/contraceptives are more readily available than ever loads and loads of 'mistakes' keep happening but it's ok, because abortion is always there as an option.

[ArabHibee]

Just look at the sheer numbers of abortions being carried out every year.

Even though we are more educated/contraceptives are more readily available than ever loads and loads of 'mistakes' keep happening but it's ok, because abortion is always there as an option.

I can't have a look at the sheer numbers as you haven't shown me any.

Listen, I'm not having a pop at you but do you (or does anyone) have hard figures on this matter? I'm just interested.

[Twa Cairpets]

I can't have a look at the sheer numbers as you haven't shown me any.

Listen, I'm not having a pop at you but do you (or does anyone) have hard figures on this matter? I'm just interested.

2007 figures for England and Wales - 690,000 live births (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369), 198,500 reported abortions (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508).

Dont quite see the link with assisted suicide though, regardless of what the numbers are.

[ArabHibee]

2007 figures for England and Wales - 690,000 live births (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369), 198,500 reported abortions (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508).

Dont quite see the link with assisted suicide though, regardless of what the numbers are.

Thanks for the numbers. Is that high deemed high though?
I think the link that he's trying to make (excuse me if I'm wrong) is that a life is being taken?

[Wilson]

Thanks for the numbers. Is that high deemed high though?


As a form of contraception? Probably not.

Does anyone have the comparative figures for condoms sold or quantities of 'the pill' prescribed?

[Woody1985]

Just look at the sheer numbers of abortions being carried out every year.

Even though we are more educated/contraceptives are more readily available than ever loads and loads of 'mistakes' keep happening but it's ok, because abortion is always there as an option.

I don't think that a lot of people do use it like this. Admittedly some do, when I was in 4th year a lassie in my class had 13 abortions.:bitchy: And she was a minger. :LOL:

[ArabHibee]

I don't think that a lot of people do use it like this. Admittedly some do, when I was in 4th year a lassie in my class had 13 abortions.:bitchy: And she was a minger. :LOL:

Is that true? If it is I'm astounded. I think any female that can take the option of having an abortion lightly and use it constantly as a form of contraception must be seriously no right in the head.

[Woody1985]

Is that true? If it is I'm astounded. I think any female that can take the option of having an abortion lightly and use it constantly as a form of contraception must be seriously no right in the head.

Yep.

She'd talk openly about it and never cared what anyone said even though she got ripped for being a dirty slag.

She could have been talking out her arse about the numbers. Even if it wasn't 13 I'd say she wouldn't have been far off it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Yep.

She'd talk openly about it and never cared what anyone said even though she got ripped for being a dirty slag.

She could have been talking out her arse about the numbers. Even if it wasn't 13 I'd say she wouldn't have been far off it.

Not wanting to cast doubt on your recollections of fourth year, but I would think 13 abortions in a year would be pretty much biologically impossible.

But even if it was two or three, its still a large number and way, way too many for anybody. Sounds like the lassie had issues whatever the truth of the matter...

I still dont see how abortion has anything to do with assisted suicide though. I understand the bit that its to do with intervening to end a life (depending on your view of when life begins of course, but thats a whole different sack of monkeys), but one is a sentient adult making a rational, considered choice for themselves, the other is a making a choice for another (potential) life. Now, I'm pro-choice on abortion, but even if someone is passionately anti-abortion arent they trying to throw in what they regard as murder with suicide? Sems to me to be very different ends of the spectrum

[PeeJay]

On the way to the match today my dad was listening to radio 4 and there was an intresting debate show about assisted suicide. I've also heard about the Mrs Purdie case and the lords said the law needed clarification.
So I think it's time for a new debate on the matter.(On here :wink: :greengrin)

I fully accept that there may well be cases where an assisted suicide would be "beneficial" to the person committing the act. However, I cannot envisage a law being put through Parliament that covers every actuality and ensures that, e.g. no-one can be coerced into something of which they are maybe not 100% certain - surely doubt will always be present?
Human nature being what it is I’m sure there are also individuals amongst us who would find ways and means of abusing any good intentions provided by such an act. On the one hand, people (which people?) would be able to end their lives who genuinely wish to. On the other hand however, how can any law protect those whose minds are in a fragile state, or who may not be strong-willed enough to withstand pressure put on them by people who would themselves benefit from their deaths? How many people could possibly then be assisted in an act of suicide that they were (perhaps) not fully in agreement with?

How can we regulate this through a law that will assuredly cover each and every single instance? I personally think the only answer to this is: we can’t, and if we can’t, I don’t think we should.

[ArabHibee]

Does anyone know how Switzerland regulate it?

[PeeJay]

Does anyone know how Switzerland regulate it?

Switzerland (not my favourite country) - here's a link!
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Assisted_suicide_prompts_more_recommendations.html ?siteSect=105&sid=7200738

[Woody1985]

Not wanting to cast doubt on your recollections of fourth year, but I would think 13 abortions in a year would be pretty much biologically impossible.

But even if it was two or three, its still a large number and way, way too many for anybody. Sounds like the lassie had issues whatever the truth of the matter...

I still dont see how abortion has anything to do with assisted suicide though. I understand the bit that its to do with intervening to end a life (depending on your view of when life begins of course, but thats a whole different sack of monkeys), but one is a sentient adult making a rational, considered choice for themselves, the other is a making a choice for another (potential) life. Now, I'm pro-choice on abortion, but even if someone is passionately anti-abortion arent they trying to throw in what they regard as murder with suicide? Sems to me to be very different ends of the spectrum

It wasn't just in 4th year she had them all. She'd been sleeping around since she was 11 or 12.

I also don't think it's relevant to this discussion, just picked up on something said earlier.

[Dashing Bob S]

As a resident of Merchiston, i'd be happy to come down to Gorgie and help anybody out who was exhibting said tendancies. In fact, I'm going for a record number of assists here.

On the serious side, yes, and for the reasons mentioned in the threads.

[Bishop Hibee]

I'm against assisted suicide. Interesting to note so are the disability groups I'm aware of.

The Disability Rights Commission in their policy statement on assisted suicide say there are a number of steps that need to be taken before we contemplate assisted dying legislation:

Abolishing discriminatory guidelines and practice on withholding and/or withdrawing life-saving treatment for disabled people;
Producing demonstrable reductions in discrimination and inequalities in health services;
Improving the quality and capacity of palliative care provision equally across the country and ensuring supply does not lag behind demand (as is currently the case);
Implementing effective rights to independent advocacy and communication support; and
Implementing rights to independent living to create a society where all disabled people are able to participate fully as equal citizens.

I'd go with the above before even thinking about assisted suicide in Scotland.

[Sir David Gray]

So you support passive choice of the right to die, but not the active choice?

Its ok to do nothing to die, but its not ok to do something to die?

I think this is a very thin dividing line. Essentially, you belive that you can refuse to take drugs or treatment that will have the result of making you die faster and in great pain, but you cant take different drugs or treatment that will allow you to die more quickly, without pain and with some personal dignity?

Sorry Falkirk, dont see how you can justify the morality of your response on any level.

The line for me is whether or not someone needs a machine, an operation or any other kind of treatment to keep them alive. I think that if they fall into the above category, they should be able to refuse a life saving operation or give a "do not resuscitate" order to a doctor.

I just cannot agree with people being given lethal drugs that will bring about their early death. Like I say, I do not believe that a doctor should be ending the lives of patients as that is simply not what their job is all about.

They are there to treat patients and help them get better or, in cases where getting better is not possible, they are there to make the patient as comfortable as possible.

I know that in the Netherlands, if a GP receives a request from a patient to assist in their death, they can administer drugs which end their life.

If I was a doctor, I would train for years to become a GP so that I could help people get better and provide comfort and ease pain of the terminally ill. I think that actively ending someone's life goes against everything that a doctor stands for.

[Twa Cairpets]

The line for me is whether or not someone needs a machine, an operation or any other kind of treatment to keep them alive. I think that if they fall into the above category, they should be able to refuse a life saving operation or give a "do not resuscitate" order to a doctor.

I just cannot agree with people being given lethal drugs that will bring about their early death. Like I say, I do not believe that a doctor should be ending the lives of patients as that is simply not what their job is all about.

They are there to treat patients and help them get better or, in cases where getting better is not possible, they are there to make the patient as comfortable as possible.

I know that in the Netherlands, if a GP receives a request from a patient to assist in their death, they can administer drugs which end their life.

If I was a doctor, I would train for years to become a GP so that I could help people get better and provide comfort and ease pain of the terminally ill. I think that actively ending someone's life goes against everything that a doctor stands for.

OK, ignore the role of Doctors. Imagine that there are specially trained, hugely caring people who would manage the whole process for someone.

Then look at the statement in the earlier post again "Essentially, you belive that you can refuse to take drugs or treatment that will have the result of making you die faster and in great pain, but you cant take different drugs or treatment that will allow you to die more quickly, without pain and with some personal dignity" and explain how you can justify this

[Sir David Gray]

OK, ignore the role of Doctors. Imagine that there are specially trained, hugely caring people who would manage the whole process for someone.

Then look at the statement in the earlier post again "Essentially, you belive that you can refuse to take drugs or treatment that will have the result of making you die faster and in great pain, but you cant take different drugs or treatment that will allow you to die more quickly, without pain and with some personal dignity" and explain how you can justify this

Because the question that I would always ask would be, "Can Mr X survive without a life saving operation or some sort of medical machinery?"

If the answer to that question is no, I don't see how you can stop someone refusing treatment, even when it could potentially save their life.

That is where I think the line should be drawn.

I would be slightly more at ease if it wasn't a medical professional who was providing these lethal drugs but I would still have to say that I would be opposed to it.

[da-robster]

The line for me is whether or not someone needs a machine, an operation or any other kind of treatment to keep them alive. I think that if they fall into the above category, they should be able to refuse a life saving operation or give a "do not resuscitate" order to a doctor.

I just cannot agree with people being given lethal drugs that will bring about their early death. Like I say, I do not believe that a doctor should be ending the lives of patients as that is simply not what their job is all about.

They are there to treat patients and help them get better or, in cases where getting better is not possible, they are there to make the patient as comfortable as possible.

I know that in the Netherlands, if a GP receives a request from a patient to assist in their death, they can administer drugs which end their life.

If I was a doctor, I would train for years to become a GP so that I could help people get better and provide comfort and ease pain of the terminally ill. I think that actively ending someone's life goes against everything that a doctor stands for.

But surely you could argue that the doctor is merely easing there pain with the side effect of death. Which is something that doctors in this country do all the time.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Call me a cynic, but with the increase in older people with dementia who have to be cared for, and the associated costs to the state and their families, I have a feeling that there will be a loosening of legislation surrounding the right to die.

It has nothing to do with dignity and respect, it is based on economics. Furthermore, I think that the pressure on the elderly to "die with dignity" will become greater.

[Woody1985]

Call me a cynic, but with the increase in older people with dementia who have to be cared for, and the associated costs to the state and their families, I have a feeling that there will be a loosening of legislation surrounding the right to die.

It has nothing to do with dignity and respect, it is based on economics. Furthermore, I think that the pressure on the elderly to "die with dignity" will become greater.

That wouldn't suprise me in the slightest TBH.

I think that other countries views on the situation will also have a major impact on it i.e America.

[Onceinawhile]

The line for me is whether or not someone needs a machine, an operation or any other kind of treatment to keep them alive. I think that if they fall into the above category, they should be able to refuse a life saving operation or give a "do not resuscitate" order to a doctor.

I just cannot agree with people being given lethal drugs that will bring about their early death. Like I say, I do not believe that a doctor should be ending the lives of patients as that is simply not what their job is all about.

They are there to treat patients and help them get better or, in cases where getting better is not possible, they are there to make the patient as comfortable as possible.

I know that in the Netherlands, if a GP receives a request from a patient to assist in their death, they can administer drugs which end their life.

If I was a doctor, I would train for years to become a GP so that I could help people get better and provide comfort and ease pain of the terminally ill. I think that actively ending someone's life goes against everything that a doctor stands for.


Is the problem that it would be a doctor doing it all? would you be happier with it if it was a qualified proffessional who was trained to do this job specifically?

I'm for it, however it would need to be heavily regulated, possibly a bit like organ donorship, where you have to have given permission to donate your organs. Maybe you should sign a consent form once you reach a certain age that would then come into effect should you have a terminal illness.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That wouldn't suprise me in the slightest TBH.

I think that other countries views on the situation will also have a major impact on it i.e America.

That is the worry of a lot of people, is that AS will be overused and there will be pressure on families and individuals to take that route.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in favour of self determination, but I think the whole thing should be handled with sensitivity, or we'll end up like that film Logan's Run, where everyone over 30 is put to death.

[joe breezy]

That is the worry of a lot of people, is that AS will be overused and there will be pressure on families and individuals to take that route.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in favour of self determination, but I think the whole thing should be handled with sensitivity, or we'll end up like that film Logan's Run, where everyone over 30 is put to death.

That's an extreme interpretation - going by the same logic we shouldn't have CCTV due to how it could be used by a more totalitarian government.

If I become terminally ill and face going into a vegetative state I want to have the right to get help in taking a sharp exit.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's an extreme interpretation - going by the same logic we shouldn't have CCTV due to how it could be used by a more totalitarian government.

If I become terminally ill and face going into a vegetative state I want to have the right to get help in taking a sharp exit.

There has been plenty discussion lately about how CCTV is being abused. As you point out, it was brought in for our own good. Now it is being used for all sorts of things it wasn't intended for - often illegaly.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to determine when you die, just that people should also have the right to live if they want to. You might be surprised how poorly older people are treated by the NHS - how much harder it is for them to get access to care and services. It is also the case that very often decisions are made about whether to resuscitate them, based on their age, not on their wishes.

At first it will be an option to die, then after a while it will be expected, eventually it could become compulsory. You might think that's extreme, but there was a time when a woman dieing in an open ward in Glasgow Victoria Infirmary would have been a national scandal.

Instead, this woman was allowed to end her days surrounded by other patients, without even the privacy of a curtain round her bed. What does that tell you about the mentality of the people running our health care? Don't trust them an inch.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm against assisted suicide. Interesting to note so are the disability groups I'm aware of.

The Disability Rights Commission in their policy statement on assisted suicide say there are a number of steps that need to be taken before we contemplate assisted dying legislation:

Abolishing discriminatory guidelines and practice on withholding and/or withdrawing life-saving treatment for disabled people;
Producing demonstrable reductions in discrimination and inequalities in health services;
Improving the quality and capacity of palliative care provision equally across the country and ensuring supply does not lag behind demand (as is currently the case);
Implementing effective rights to independent advocacy and communication support; and
Implementing rights to independent living to create a society where all disabled people are able to participate fully as equal citizens.

I'd go with the above before even thinking about assisted suicide in Scotland.

I think there's a need to tread carefully, in so much that if and when we allow assisted suicide it brings in a value judgement debate on what constitutes a "life worth living". Given the barriers that exist (and have existed) for disabled people - and that's a catch-all term that doesn't account for the vast diversity of individuals who would be labelled as such - there's every reason for the likes of the DRC to have reservations.

We live in a society where practices that could be considered 'eugenic' continue to be an issue (we continue to see enforced sterilisation of women with learning disabilities, for example) and they don't receive the debate and attention they should.


Call me a cynic, but with the increase in older people with dementia who have to be cared for, and the associated costs to the state and their families, I have a feeling that there will be a loosening of legislation surrounding the right to die.

It has nothing to do with dignity and respect, it is based on economics. Furthermore, I think that the pressure on the elderly to "die with dignity" will become greater.

I think this is a very good point. The demographic changes over the next ten, twenty and thirty years are startling if one hasn't come across them before.

The number of older people spikes dramatically, and the number of 'older' older people even more so. It's a huge, huge increase built on what is essentially a better lifestyle and a vastly better health service.

Within all that, there is, amongst other things, a big increase anticipated in dementia prevalence, partly through greater awareness and self or peer diagnosis admittedly (or indeed hopefully).

Add to that, a massive increase in longevity for adults with learning disabilities (where dementia prevalence increases at a scale that dwarves the norm beyond 50yrs old).

It all adds up to a bit of a timebomb and the current models of care simply wouldn't cope. Unless (oft-cited) we were building care homes every week and 90% of school leavers were staffing them...

The demand will only be met by a greater shift onto community-based resources. Meaning that people with dementia will stay in their own home longer (usually not a bad thing, if you understand dementia). The downside is the stress on those who care for a parent, partner, sibling (or even a child) with dementia.

Would not be surprised to see the user/carer lobby 'responsibilised' for the 'right to a dignified death' argument. It's a natural progression. Scarily for those who think the government is centralising, this would be a not untypical example of how they devolve power - at least when it involves a difficult decision :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

The demand will only be met by a greater shift onto community-based resources. Meaning that people with dementia will stay in their own home longer (usually not a bad thing, if you understand dementia). The downside is the stress on those who care for a parent, partner, sibling (or even a child) with dementia.
:greengrin

I think community care using technology such as CCTV and tagging devices will certainly play a part. The other thing is I think that stress, alcohol and obesity will play their part in reducing longevity.

In fact they could also make it compulsory to ride a motorbike, and legalise Heroin. Hey Presto! Right to die argument no longer valid.

[Jay]

Call me a cynic, but with the increase in older people with dementia who have to be cared for, and the associated costs to the state and their families, I have a feeling that there will be a loosening of legislation surrounding the right to die.

It has nothing to do with dignity and respect, it is based on economics. Furthermore, I think that the pressure on the elderly to "die with dignity" will become greater.

You saying we are gonna kill old people with dementia? :confused:

I think assisted suicide is something that should be legalised with strong laws surrounding it. The person should be in a full state of mind, as in not have dementia, Alzheimer's etc. As for those people a type of living will should be able to come into force which will obviously not help those already suffering but future generations. One doctor should not be able to make the decision it should be down to a panel made up of a variety of professions and backgrounds.

Its a terribley grey area and it would be wonderful if the world was a place where these decisions didn't have to be made but if we can stop an animal from suffering why do we sit back and do nothing for people?

[Phil D. Rolls]

You saying we are gonna kill old people with dementia? :confused:

I think assisted suicide is something that should be legalised with strong laws surrounding it. The person should be in a full state of mind, as in not have dementia, Alzheimer's etc. As for those people a type of living will should be able to come into force which will obviously not help those already suffering but future generations. One doctor should not be able to make the decision it should be down to a panel made up of a variety of professions and backgrounds.

Its a terribley grey area and it would be wonderful if the world was a place where these decisions didn't have to be made but if we can stop an animal from suffering why do we sit back and do nothing for people?

I am saying there is a real possibility that Assisted Suicide will be promoted as a solution to the cost of keeping the elderly. I don't think anyone will sayy as much, but I think there will be a consensus that it is something that should be available.

We will see Advanced Statements from people who still have their faculties saying that they want to die when their condition deteriorates. Over time an assumption will grow that everyone would want this option, and the need to say in advance will go.

Similar things are already happening around the area of Not for Resuscitation orders. Decisions are being made on other people's behalf, on the assumption that is what they would want.

[Jay]

I am saying there is a real possibility that Assisted Suicide will be promoted as a solution to the cost of keeping the elderly. I don't think anyone will sayy as much, but I think there will be a consensus that it is something that should be available.

We will see Advanced Statements from people who still have their faculties saying that they want to die when their condition deteriorates. Over time an assumption will grow that everyone would want this option, and the need to say in advance will go.

Similar things are already happening around the area of Not for Resuscitation orders. Decisions are being made on other people's behalf, on the assumption that is what they would want.

Totally disagree. I dont think the day would ever come that a doctor or a group of doctors will decide to give healthy elderly person a jag to end their life because they have dementia and they wouldn't want to live like that and certainly not to save us money!

DNR's are a different matter entirely.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Totally disagree. I dont think the day would ever come that a doctor or a group of doctors will decide to give healthy elderly person a jag to end their life because they have dementia and they wouldn't want to live like that and certainly not to save us money!

DNR's are a different matter entirely.

I certainly hope not. I never thought the day would come when the dieing are treated as poorly as they are in some hospital wards. I'm afraid that money is a massive influence on clinical decisions these days, and will only get worse.

[Jay]

I certainly hope not. I never thought the day would come when the dieing are treated as poorly as they are in some hospital wards. I'm afraid that money is a massive influence on clinical decisions these days, and will only get worse.

That I do agree on and not only with the elderly. I have witnessed a consultant and a nurse arguing as he wanted a full regime of tests done but she was saying that the guidelines stated that because of the lesser state of the illness (as in it had been caught early) only certain tests were allowed. She won - he could not get the tests done. That was purely down to finances.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That I do agree on and not only with the elderly. I have witnessed a consultant and a nurse arguing as he wanted a full regime of tests done but she was saying that the guidelines stated that because of the lesser state of the illness (as in it had been caught early) only certain tests were allowed. She won - he could not get the tests done. That was purely down to finances.

Here's another one - Junior Doctors can only work a 55 hour week now. So more and more decisions will be in the hands of nurses, who no doubt will delegate them to Nursing Assistants if they can, meaning that check lists like that will be used more often.

[Jay]

Here's another one - Junior Doctors can only work a 55 hour week now. So more and more decisions will be in the hands of nurses, who no doubt will delegate them to Nursing Assistants if they can, meaning that check lists like that will be used more often.

The lowest paid and over worked making big decisions that they are not paid to make but have to do anyway then take the stick when it all goes wrong even though its not their responisbilty??


:hmmm: Why does that sound familiar and not surprise me in the slightest?

Back in the 90's when the grading was brought in we were told we would be graded on the job we had been doing in the past 12 months. We were not (surprise surprise) we were well down graded and therefor underpaid and when we appealed the very people who had told us to do and even taught us to do some of the things we were not supposed to have been doing looked me straight in the face and told me that I had not done them.

Sorry :hijack:

[Phil D. Rolls]

The lowest paid and over worked making big decisions that they are not paid to make but have to do anyway then take the stick when it all goes wrong even though its not their responisbilty??


:hmmm: Why does that sound familiar and not surprise me in the slightest?

Back in the 80's when the grading was brought in we were told we would be graded on the job we had been doing in the past 12 months. We were not (surprise surprise) we were well down graded and therefor underpaid and when we appealed the very people who had told us to do and even taught us to do some of the things we were not supposed to have been doing looked me straight in the face and told me that I had not done them.

Going ever so slightly off topic, nurses have only themselves to blame. How can the doctors get a 55 hour week, with tight guarantees, yet the nurses can't? The NMC and RCN don't seem much cop to me.

[Jay]

Going ever so slightly off topic, nurses have only themselves to blame. How can the doctors get a 55 hour week, with tight guarantees, yet the nurses can't? The NMC and RCN don't seem much cop to me.

Nurses have always been their own worst enemies. The hardest part is that they became nurses because they cared and to have better deals for themselves they had to take a stance and in the most part their hearts ruled their heads. The big guns know that and manipulated it. For nurses to take a stance they usually compromise patient care or are forced to compromise patient care and then the spin doctors arrive and feed the media all the stories about the greedy nurses wanting better pay/conditions etc and give out elaborate pay scales which 99% of nurses would never earn. Even if all they want is better care for the patients.

[Twa Cairpets]

You saying we are gonna kill old people with dementia? :confused:

I think assisted suicide is something that should be legalised with strong laws surrounding it. The person should be in a full state of mind, as in not have dementia, Alzheimer's etc. As for those people a type of living will should be able to come into force which will obviously not help those already suffering but future generations. One doctor should not be able to make the decision it should be down to a panel made up of a variety of professions and backgrounds.

Its a terribley grey area and it would be wonderful if the world was a place where these decisions didn't have to be made but if we can stop an animal from suffering why do we sit back and do nothing for people?

:top marks

I agree with everything you have said here.

FR - you are moving the point away with a lot of hypothetical links as to what may happen if AS is somehow introduced.

If you ignore the potential ramifications, as you see them,and were to look on it as a moral and practical judgement on a case-by-case basis, do you still stick to the opinion that it is always wrong?

A tough question, but personalise it. If a close friend of yours was suffering appalling pain all their waking moments, and had a degenerative disease that always led to death, would you deny that person the right to choose to end their pain? Assume for the purposes of this post that you know that they are of sound mind and that the decision is entirely theirs.

Ignore the future/societal complications, ignore concerns over who would manage it for them. Just look at the very black and white question of whether in that circumstance you would think that AS would be acceptable.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:top marks

I agree with everything you have said here.

FR - you are moving the point away with a lot of hypothetical links as to what may happen if AS is somehow introduced.

If you ignore the potential ramifications, as you see them,and were to look on it as a moral and practical judgement on a case-by-case basis, do you still stick to the opinion that it is always wrong?

A tough question, but personalise it. If a close friend of yours was suffering appalling pain all their waking moments, and had a degenerative disease that always led to death, would you deny that person the right to choose to end their pain? Assume for the purposes of this post that you know that they are of sound mind and that the decision is entirely theirs.

Ignore the future/societal complications, ignore concerns over who would manage it for them. Just look at the very black and white question of whether in that circumstance you would think that AS would be acceptable.

It's a no brainer, we have the right to decide how we live and how we die. I am not against it, but I think if people want to vote for it, they have to consider all the angles.

[ancienthibby]

It's a no brainer, we have the right to decide how we live and how we die. I am not against it, but I think if people want to vote for it, they have to consider all the angles.

And we acquired this right, how exactly??

[Phil D. Rolls]

And we acquired this right, how exactly??

By being human beings. Why wouldn't we have that right?

[ancienthibby]

By being human beings. Why wouldn't we have that right?

The Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movements might suggest otherwise!

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movements might suggest otherwise!

Do you mean they had specific thoughts on suicide?

[Twa Cairpets]

The Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movements might suggest otherwise!

That is totally irrelevant, Ancient. The ultimate thing you have an inalienable right to surely is your own body?

[ancienthibby]

That is totally irrelevant, Ancient. The ultimate thing you have an inalienable right to surely is your own body?

So how did you create your own body to acquire these inalienable rights that you speak of??

[Twa Cairpets]

So how did you create your own body to acquire these inalienable rights that you speak of??

Mostly through food, water, air, and a bit of genetic code from my parents.

And liberal helpings of alcohol.

But you and I both know what track you're trying to take this one down, Ancient, and I aint going there on this thread. (And in any case, isnt the God given gift of freewill relevant here)?

[ancienthibby]

Mostly through food, water, air, and a bit of genetic code from my parents.

And liberal helpings of alcohol.

But you and I both know what track you're trying to take this one down, Ancient, and I aint going there on this thread. (And in any case, isnt the God given gift of freewill relevant here)?

And here was me trying to induce Filled Rolls into an interesting conversation!!:boo hoo::boo hoo:

Nonetheless on your bracketed point, the gift of free will is a choice God gives to follow Him or not follow Him!:greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

:top marks

I agree with everything you have said here.

FR - you are moving the point away with a lot of hypothetical links as to what may happen if AS is somehow introduced.

If you ignore the potential ramifications, as you see them,and were to look on it as a moral and practical judgement on a case-by-case basis, do you still stick to the opinion that it is always wrong?

A tough question, but personalise it. If a close friend of yours was suffering appalling pain all their waking moments, and had a degenerative disease that always led to death, would you deny that person the right to choose to end their pain? Assume for the purposes of this post that you know that they are of sound mind and that the decision is entirely theirs.

Ignore the future/societal complications, ignore concerns over who would manage it for them. Just look at the very black and white question of whether in that circumstance you would think that AS would be acceptable.

But why ignore these things? The OP was "Do you think assisted suicide should be legal?" If this is the question, then no proper answer can be given without looking at the potential ramifications of the decision. We cannot judge something like this on a purely emotional and personal appeal such as you are describing above, because we all know it is more complicated than that, and trying to simplify it to this level is dangerous IMHO.

With regards to the OP, I've never been a position where I have felt like it would be better to end my life, and I cannot imagine any circumstance where I would feel this way as I have an amazing wife and wonderful 16month old baby who give me such immense pleasure and
joy that I feel I would be able to cope with anything as long as I have them. I have however known someone who committed suicide, and I have seen first hand the devastation and ruin they left behind through what I see as their selfish action. Now this wasn't a case of someone having a degenerative terminal illness, so it cannot properly be comparable, however there are more people to think about than just yourself sometimes, and I often wonder if the people around these assisted suicide cases are truly comfortable with the action their relative/friend wants to take.

It is a very complex issue, with some very important and dangerous ramifications if it wasn't done correctly, and for this reason I do not believe it can be decided by citing emotional appeals.

[Twa Cairpets]

But why ignore these things? The OP was "Do you think assisted suicide should be legal?" If this is the question, then no proper answer can be given without looking at the potential ramifications of the decision. We cannot judge something like this on a purely emotional and personal appeal such as you are describing above, because we all know it is more complicated than that, and trying to simplify it to this level is dangerous IMHO.

With regards to the OP, I've never been a position where I have felt like it would be better to end my life, and I cannot imagine any circumstance where I would feel this way as I have an amazing wife and wonderful 16month old baby who give me such immense pleasure and
joy that I feel I would be able to cope with anything as long as I have them. I have however known someone who committed suicide, and I have seen first hand the devastation and ruin they left behind through what I see as their selfish action. Now this wasn't a case of someone having a degenerative terminal illness, so it cannot properly be comparable, however there are more people to think about than just yourself sometimes, and I often wonder if the people around these assisted suicide cases are truly comfortable with the action their relative/friend wants to take.

It is a very complex issue, with some very important and dangerous ramifications if it wasn't done correctly, and for this reason I do not believe it can be decided by citing emotional appeals.

Good post.

The point I was trying to get to I think was to see if peoples objections were based on suicide being an absolute wrong, and that there would no circumstances wherein it would be morally acceptable for someone to be assisted in taking their own life.

If that is someones belief, then fine - it becomes a morality issue.

If someone cedes the fact that that there are circumstances where ending ones/someones life is the morally appropriate thing to do, then the answer to the OP must "Yes, assisted suicide should be legal", and the debate centres solely around the degree of control society places on such a process.

[RyeSloan]

The number of older people spikes dramatically, and the number of 'older' older people even more so. It's a huge, huge increase built on what is essentially a better lifestyle and a vastly better health service.


Tsk tsk such a common mis-conception it's actually all down to homeopathic remedies and a large abortion rate....:wink: :devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

[/B]And here was me trying to induce Filled Rolls into an interesting conversation!!:boo hoo::boo hoo:

Nonetheless on your bracketed point, the gift of free will is a choice God gives to follow Him or not follow Him!:greengrin

I didn't get where I am today without knowing how to sidestep an interesting conversation Reggie.

[(((Fergus)))]

I am saying there is a real possibility that Assisted Suicide will be promoted as a solution to the cost of keeping the elderly. I don't think anyone will sayy as much, but I think there will be a consensus that it is something that should be available.

We will see Advanced Statements from people who still have their faculties saying that they want to die when their condition deteriorates. Over time an assumption will grow that everyone would want this option, and the need to say in advance will go.

Similar things are already happening around the area of Not for Resuscitation orders. Decisions are being made on other people's behalf, on the assumption that is what they would want.

:top marks
Just give it a few years. If enough people want something, it's only a matter of time. As the demographics change it will be presented as a national imperative.


Totally disagree. I dont think the day would ever come that a doctor or a group of doctors will decide to give healthy elderly person a jag to end their life because they have dementia and they wouldn't want to live like that and certainly not to save us money!

DNR's are a different matter entirely.

It's happened in the past in civilised, secular European countries, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Also the same profession already kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, so we already have our own precedent for deciding the lives of people who can't speak for themselves - largely on economic grounds.

[Twa Cairpets]

:top marks
Just give it a few years. If enough people want something, it's only a matter of time. As the demographics change it will be presented as a national imperative.



It's happened in the past in civilised, secular European countries, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Also the same profession already kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, so we already have our own precedent for deciding the lives of people who can't speak for themselves - largely on economic grounds.

I could reply to your first point rather glibly by saying thats called democracy, but thats not the point. No-one (I hope) is saying for a moment that satate sponsored euthanasia for the elderly, infirm or incapable is a good thing. I do love your line "As the demographics change it will be presented as a national imperative" (my emphasis). Where are you getting your certainty from? For a man of religion you have a bleak outlook on life. (Of course the way to do it is if they fall ill, give them some of your homeopathic cures. That'll kill them off quick enough).

Your second point has already been covered, I think, earlier in the thread. If you'll forgive me quoting myself "I still dont see how abortion has anything to do with assisted suicide though. I understand the bit that its to do with intervening to end a life (depending on your view of when life begins of course, but thats a whole different sack of monkeys), but one is a sentient adult making a rational, considered choice for themselves, the other is someone making a choice regarding another (potential) life. Now, I'm pro-choice on abortion, but even if someone is passionately anti-abortion arent they trying to throw in what they regard as murder with suicide? Seems to me to be very different ends of the spectrum".

Your views on abortion are unrelated to this thread.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:top marks
Just give it a few years. If enough people want something, it's only a matter of time. As the demographics change it will be presented as a national imperative.



It's happened in the past in civilised, secular European countries, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Also the same profession already kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, so we already have our own precedent for deciding the lives of people who can't speak for themselves - largely on economic grounds.

Without getting into a debate over abortion, many of the issues that surround AS are similar. I'm sure when it was first legalised there were to be all sorts of safeguards as to how it was used, there were acknowledgements of people who were against its concerns. Over time it has become as routine as going to the dentist (and probably a lot easier).

[Twa Cairpets]

Without getting into a debate over abortion, many of the issues that surround AS are similar. I'm sure when it was first legalised there were to be all sorts of safeguards as to how it was used, there were acknowledgements of people who were against its concerns. Over time it has become as routine as going to the dentist (and probably a lot easier).

Im not disputing that, but similar does not mean identical. AS is choosing to end your own life, not someone the potential of someone elses. That makes all the difference, and its inclusion only muddies the waters

[(((Fergus)))]

I certainly hope not. I never thought the day would come when the dieing are treated as poorly as they are in some hospital wards. I'm afraid that money is a massive influence on clinical decisions these days, and will only get worse.

Certain patients are already given a "helping hand" through overmedicating with morphine etc. and have been for years. There is obviously no formal request for suicide from the patient and in many cases the relatives (if there are any) are not party to this action. In other words, non-voluntary "mercy killing" is already an established practise in (some) medical establishments.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Im not disputing that, but similar does not mean identical. AS is choosing to end your own life, not someone the potential of someone elses. That makes all the difference, and its inclusion only muddies the waters

I'm really wanting to highlight the broader issue, namely that other issues apart from ethics and morality will cloud the waters. As I've already stated, I am pro choice, and have actually wanted this whole issue sorted for many years, but it has to be sorted following proper public discussion, so that no-one can come back later and claim they hadn't been informed of all the issues.

You only have to look at cases from Holland, where the legislation is considered a bit ropey, if not downright dangerous, to appreciate that it is one big can of worms. The Dutch are known for discussing things to the nth degree before making decisions, so what chance does "we'll fix things if they go wrong" Britain have?

Do you trust the current bunch of politicians to have the intellect to deal with this issue? Maybe we should get Jacqui Smith to set up a commission and then let her decide on the basis of what it says in horoscope!

I digress.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Certain patients are already given a "helping hand" through overmedicating with morphine etc. and have been for years. There is obviously no formal request for suicide from the patient and in many cases the relatives (if there are any) are not party to this action. In other words, non-voluntary "mercy killing" is already an established practise in (some) medical establishments.

I think in the vast majority of those cases, the right decision is taken. It tends to be in the last days (if not hours) of life, and relieve distress in those who are on their way out anyway.

However, you are raising a good point for discussion. Namely, if the patient is dieing, then how can they be killed, and isn't everyone dieing?

[(((Fergus)))]

I think in the vast majority of those cases, the right decision is taken. It tends to be in the last days (if not hours) of life, and relieve distress in those who are on their way out anyway.

However, you are raising a good point for discussion. Namely, if the patient is dieing, then how can they be killed, and isn't everyone dieing?


Indeed.

How do you know a patient is dying unless you've planned it? Unless you let nature take its course, you will never know what the natural outcome would have been.

I've seen people given days to live by doctors - people who were in great distress at the time - but who refused intervention and are happy to be alive many years later. For that reason, the principle should be that no man may decide the lifespan of another (without becoming a murderer in the process).

[Phil D. Rolls]

Indeed.

How do you know a patient is dying unless you've planned it? Unless you let nature take its course, you will never know what the natural outcome would have been.

I've seen people given days to live by doctors - people who were in great distress at the time - but who refused intervention and are happy to be alive many years later. For that reason, the principle should be that no man may decide the lifespan of another (without becoming a murderer in the process).

I honestly think those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Marie Curie nurses, for example, can usually predict to the hour when someone will go.

What should really be considered is quality of life, and how you determine that. Different people have different definitions of what is a tolerable life, so it has to be down to the individual.

A good example is persistent vegatative state. I did a bit of research on this some time ago, and I found that the one in a million chance that someone would wake up was being used as an argument against ceasing intervention.

When I scratched deeper I found that in those one in a million cases, the best they had ever been able to achieve was that the person was able to watch tv and laugh at cartoons, a zombie in effect.

Then you had the religious argument, namely that god will decide when someone dies. I thought, fine let's stop interfering with god's will, withdraw the medication and artificial feeding, and see what happens. If god is really in control he can decide then.

It seemed to me that the outside chance of recovery was so disproportionate to the chances of no recovery, that it wasn't really worth considering.

[Twa Cairpets]

Indeed.

How do you know a patient is dying unless you've planned it? Unless you let nature take its course, you will never know what the natural outcome would have been.

I've seen people given days to live by doctors - people who were in great distress at the time - but who refused intervention and are happy to be alive many years later. For that reason, the principle should be that no man may decide the lifespan of another (without becoming a murderer in the process).

Not doubting you for a moment, but when you say "people" it suggests a plural. Are these reported anywhere? And what "intervention" are you referring to? Pain relief? Saline drips? An operation? A lethal coktail of drugs to send them on their way painlessly? I think it quite important to define these.

Is there any evidence that this is a frequent occurence? And more importantly, did these people, seemingly at least in the front step if not the actual door of death, request to be aided in their own suicide? If they did, you have a point, if they didnt, I would respectfully suggest you dont.

[RyeSloan]

Indeed.

How do you know a patient is dying unless you've planned it? Unless you let nature take its course, you will never know what the natural outcome would have been.

I've seen people given days to live by doctors - people who were in great distress at the time - but who refused intervention and are happy to be alive many years later. For that reason, the principle should be that no man may decide the lifespan of another (without becoming a murderer in the process).

But that's the crux....it's isn't the person delivering the medication to end a life that has decided is it. It's the person themselves that has made that decision.

As an aside as I think the length of life left is not always the best measure of whether an assisted suicide should be considered (frequently it is the prospect of too long a life that may drive such a choice) it is fair to say that Doctors estimations of life span are just that and estimation based on previous experience but I would wager that the vast vast majority of people given days to live will be dead pretty soon. Yup there is exceptions to every rule but as filled rolls says sadly there is very few, if any, patients that will walk out of a Marie Curie care centre and live for many years later.

[(((Fergus)))]

But that's the crux....it's isn't the person delivering the medication to end a life that has decided is it. It's the person themselves that has made that decision.

As an aside as I think the length of life left is not always the best measure of whether an assisted suicide should be considered (frequently it is the prospect of too long a life that may drive such a choice) it is fair to say that Doctors estimations of life span are just that and estimation based on previous experience but I would wager that the vast vast majority of people given days to live will be dead pretty soon. Yup there is exceptions to every rule but as filled rolls says sadly there is very few, if any, patients that will walk out of a Marie Curie care centre and live for many years later.

Unless two people make a decision you cannot have an assisted suicide.

One person has to decide whether to kill themselves; the other has to decide whether to kill another person.

Maybe give them to the army for target practice - harden the troops to the process of taking life. That would kill two birds with one stone.

[RyeSloan]

Unless two people make a decision you cannot have an assisted suicide.

One person has to decide whether to kill themselves; the other has to decide whether to kill another person.

Maybe give them to the army for target practice - harden the troops to the process of taking life. That would kill two birds with one stone.

oh nice, that comment shows a lot, it would seem you actually have no sympathy for those that may be involved or how much dignity and humility it might take to come to such a decision.

[da-robster]

Certain patients are already given a "helping hand" through overmedicating with morphine etc. and have been for years. There is obviously no formal request for suicide from the patient and in many cases the relatives (if there are any) are not party to this action. In other words, non-voluntary "mercy killing" is already an established practise in (some) medical establishments.

Could you not argue that the doctor is simply easing the pain with the side effect of death.When in the state that you have hours to live surely the doctors have a duty to make the patient as comfortable as possible if that entails slightly earlier death then so be it.
You also argue that no human has any right to decide anothers life then how come you are allowed to decide if a terminaly ill patient can end his life with a bit of dignity.

[Twa Cairpets]

Unless two people make a decision you cannot have an assisted suicide.

One person has to decide whether to kill themselves; the other has to decide whether to kill another person.

Maybe give them to the army for target practice - harden the troops to the process of taking life. That would kill two birds with one stone.

So are there no circumstances in which you think Assisted Suicide is a morally acceptable thing to do?

[ancienthibby]

So are there no circumstances in which you think Assisted Suicide is a morally acceptable thing to do?

Absolutely not!

It's got to do with what's called the sanctity of human life. Even the UK government recognised this when it gave up on capital punishment. There is nothing in life more precious than human life. If you look at the justified outcry about the saddest killing there can be - that of an innocent, helpless life - as in the case of Baby P, then you can understand something of the absolute value of human life.

That does not change if you add on 80 years!!

[Twa Cairpets]

Absolutely not!

It's got to do with what's called the sanctity of human life. Even the UK government recognised this when it gave up on capital punishment. There is nothing in life more precious than human life. If you look at the justified outcry about the saddest killing there can be - that of an innocent, helpless life - as in the case of Baby P, then you can understand something of the absolute value of human life.

That does not change if you add on 80 years!!

I dont think you can conflate baby P with Assisted suicide in any way, other than it involves death.

Ancient, is dignity of human life subservient to sanctity? Do you believe for example that it is better to keep someone alive artificially who is in a persistent vegetative state rather than allow them to die?

[ancienthibby]

I dont think you can conflate baby P with Assisted suicide in any way, other than it involves death.

Ancient, is dignity of human life subservient to sanctity? Do you believe for example that it is better to keep someone alive artificially who is in a persistent vegetative state rather than allow them to die?

You've clearly been paying attention, TC!! Well done.

The only word I would take issue with is 'better' in that I do not think it is appropriate where, essentially, there is no choice to be made and so the two positions cannot be compared.

You will not accept this, I suspect, but if you believe that humans were all created by the Eternal God, then you are also given the assurance in Scripture that no burden will be too great for you to cope with - in living or in dying.

I have enormous sympathy with those who think compassionately about their loved ones and do not want them to suffer indignity in their last stages but, I am also a perfervid believer that humans do, not have the right to end any other human life in any way!!

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]You've clearly been paying attention, TC!! Well done.

The only word I would take issue with is 'better' in that I do not think it is appropriate where, essentially, there is no choice to be made and so the two positions cannot be compared.

You will not accept this, I suspect, but if you believe that humans were all created by the Eternal God, then you are also given the assurance in Scripture that no burden will be too great for you to cope with - in living or in dying.

I have enormous sympathy with those who think compassionately about their loved ones and do not want them to suffer indignity in their last stages but, I am also a perfervid believer that humans do, not have the right to end any other human life in any way!!

Firstly, thanks for a new word. "Perfervid". Im sure I have never seen it before.

As always, interesting points, but you really must endeavour to go a post on this forum without using the word "scripture":wink:

I like trying to pick your posts to bits, so here goes:

1) ...the two positions cannot be compared. Why not? They both involve the external action (or inaction) of an individual that has a direct consequence for a life. Take another example - is it right to have a "Do Not Resuscitate" on a patients notes? Is this not effectively assisting death? You may say, well, it was going to happen anyway, but going down that logical route you could say that administering anibiotics for, say, flesh eating necrotitis is getting in the way of Gods plan for that person to die. You cant have it all ways.

2) "You will not accept this, I suspect..." Darn tootin' I dont. Hideous pain and suffering and disease and misery and hardship and faultless tragedy hit the devout and heretical equally. As a rabid, damned and doomed atheist, surely it should be me that gets all the nasties? I have rather a good life, I think. plenty of religious people do find the suffering of living or dieing too hard to bear. Are they just not devout enough? is their faith too weak? Or do they just think - "of this is Gods mercy, I dont want any of it"?

3) humans do not have the right to end any other human life in any way!! I take it you are a quaker then. No killing is justified, eh. How about self defence? How about in a war? How about if it was in a fight over the last piece of medical aid that would keep your child alive as long as someone else didnt get it? How about the assisted killing of an elderly relative begging to die? Ancient, I have no idea of your personal circumstances or history, but I would venture to suggest that such "purity" of view is only capable from the standpoint of relative affluence in relatively safe times, and as such could be interpeted as somewhat sanctimonious.

[ancienthibby]

Firstly, thanks for a new word. "Perfervid". Im sure I have never seen it before.

As always, interesting points, but you really must endeavour to go a post on this forum without using the word "scripture":wink:

I like trying to pick your posts to bits, so here goes:

1) ...the two positions cannot be compared. Why not? They both involve the external action (or inaction) of an individual that has a direct consequence for a life. Take another example - is it right to have a "Do Not Resuscitate" on a patients notes? Is this not effectively assisting death? You may say, well, it was going to happen anyway, but going down that logical route you could say that administering anibiotics for, say, flesh eating necrotitis is getting in the way of Gods plan for that person to die. You cant have it all ways.

2) "You will not accept this, I suspect..." Darn tootin' I dont. Hideous pain and suffering and disease and misery and hardship and faultless tragedy hit the devout and heretical equally. As a rabid, damned and doomed atheist, surely it should be me that gets all the nasties? I have rather a good life, I think. plenty of religious people do find the suffering of living or dieing too hard to bear. Are they just not devout enough? is their faith too weak? Or do they just think - "of this is Gods mercy, I dont want any of it"?

3) humans do not have the right to end any other human life in any way!! I take it you are a quaker then. No killing is justified, eh. How about self defence? How about in a war? How about if it was in a fight over the last piece of medical aid that would keep your child alive as long as someone else didnt get it? How about the assisted killing of an elderly relative begging to die? Ancient, I have no idea of your personal circumstances or history, but I would venture to suggest that such "purity" of view is only capable from the standpoint of relative affluence in relatively safe times, and as such could be interpeted as somewhat sanctimonious.

Oh dear, oh dear!!

Some jangled TC nerve endings on display in that post!!

For now I'll deal only with the final highlighted portion!

Question: How can a man of such unquestioning belief in rationalism such as yourself make such a sweeping generalisation??

Your rationality is clearly set aside in that massive assumption, despite your caveat at the beginning!!

You rightly know that we share two things in common being Hibs supporters and posters on this forum. But how utterly wrong you are about your assumptions of 'relative affluence in relatively safe times'!! I can assure you I have known nothing of that for the past twenty years and, indeed I can offer you a couple of real-time facts. One is that I live with a terminal medical condition and the other is that my claim to affluence is measured by the 9-year old car in the driveway (of a house I do not own!) with 80k miles on it!!

No, you see the reason I posted as before is that I know what a debtor to God's grace I am every day and, although it does not conform to your (now somewhat irrational) view of these things, that does permit me to post without a sanctimonious thought in my mind! You should try it!

Let me also add that I have become hugely indebted to the NHS and its people in recent years (including 4 stays in hospitals, one of these being the ERI) and I am an utter admirer of the wonderful work they do, including on me, to preserve, repair and sustain life. I had quite remarkable surgery performed on me and I have utmost respect for the wonderful brains that develop these enabling technologies and procedures.

And a final point of interest for you - I first came across the word 'perfervid' in a 'Hootsman' article some 35 years ago when it was used to describe the politician who had just become the first leader of the new Scottish Labour Party. For your pub trivia quiz file:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]
Oh dear, oh dear!!

Some jangled TC nerve endings on display in that post!!

For now I'll deal only with the final highlighted portion!

Question: How can a man of such unquestioning belief in rationalism such as yourself make such a sweeping generalisation??

Your rationality is clearly set aside in that massive assumption, despite your caveat at the beginning!!

You rightly know that we share two things in common being Hibs supporters and posters on this forum. But how utterly wrong you are about your assumptions of 'relative affluence in relatively safe times'!! I can assure you I have known nothing of that for the past twenty years and, indeed I can offer you a couple of real-time facts. One is that I live with a terminal medical condition and the other is that my claim to affluence is measured by the 9-year old car in the driveway (of a house I do not own!) with 80k miles on it!!

No, you see the reason I posted as before is that I know what a debtor to God's grace I am every day and, although it does not conform to your (now somewhat irrational) view of these things, that does permit me to post without a sanctimonious thought in my mind! You should try it!

Let me also add that I have become hugely indebted to the NHS and its people in recent years (including 4 stays in hospitals, one of these being the ERI) and I am an utter admirer of the wonderful work they do, including on me, to preserve, repair and sustain life. I had quite remarkable surgery performed on me and I have utmost respect for the wonderful brains that develop these enabling technologies and procedures.

And a final point of interest for you - I first came across the word 'perfervid' in a 'Hootsman' article some 35 years ago when it was used to describe the politician who had just become the first leader of the new Scottish Labour Party. For your pub trivia quiz file:greengrin

Ancient, I truly hope that you are around for many many years to come. Whilst I clearly disagree fundamentally with virtually everything that you have a deep unswerving belief in, you hold that belief with a welcome degree of dignity and - no pun intended - good grace.

But to your point, I dont think that a rationalist approach reduces the ability to make generalisations, as long as they are - generally - valid.

The point was made with reference to your stance that "it is never right to take a life". I do think that your circumstances - descibed as they are - are relatively affluent on a global scale. You have access to shelter, food and water and excellent medical care. This puts you, me and everyone else on this board streets ahead of the majority of people on the planet. I do believe that having these basic needs met does allow one to take a stance on the issues discussed on this thread that is not necessarily open to others. I do think it can be sanctimonious also.

By the way - me with jangling nerves? Nah.

[ancienthibby]

Ancient, I truly hope that you are around for many many years to come. Whilst I clearly disagree fundamentally with virtually everything that you have a deep unswerving belief in, you hold that belief with a welcome degree of dignity and - no pun intended - good grace.

But to your point, I dont think that a rationalist approach reduces the ability to make generalisations, as long as they are - generally - valid.

The point was made with reference to your stance that "it is never right to take a life". I do think that your circumstances - descibed as they are - are relatively affluent on a global scale. You have access to shelter, food and water and excellent medical care. This puts you, me and everyone else on this board streets ahead of the majority of people on the planet. I do believe that having these basic needs met does allow one to take a stance on the issues discussed on this thread that is not necessarily open to others. I do think it can be sanctimonious also.

By the way - me with jangling nerves? Nah.

Thanks for your kind wishes TC.:agree:

Your move to 'global scale' comparisons I will respond to later:greengrin!!

[Sauzee 62]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8200931.stm

I agree that, in certain instances, assisted suicide should be allowed but that should involve going to a clinic - like the one in Switzerland - and having a lethal injection so that you pass away peacefully and quickly. Surely it is inhumane to just stop feeding and watering him?!

[RyeSloan]

Thanks for your kind wishes TC.:agree:

Your move to 'global scale' comparisons I will respond to later:greengrin!!

Or maybe you could respond to the numerous more valid points in TC's post, I'm especially interested in your response to his query on your rather interesting assertion that we have "the assurance in Scripture that no burden will be too great for you to cope with - in living or in dying."

[Betty Boop]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/terminally-ill-woman-wins-right-to-be-blown-up-by-the-army-200908212002/ :greengrin

[Woody1985]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8200931.stm

I agree that, in certain instances, assisted suicide should be allowed but that should involve going to a clinic - like the one in Switzerland - and having a lethal injection so that you pass away peacefully and quickly. Surely it is inhumane to just stop feeding and watering him?!

Sad story since he says he only fears pain. He'll suffer starving. He'll die of dehydration first though. Prob best takin a few valium to sleep more.

[Sir David Gray]

My apologies for taking so long to reply to those two posts. I have been away quite a lot in the past couple of weeks so this is the first chance I have had to respond.


But surely you could argue that the doctor is merely easing there pain with the side effect of death. Which is something that doctors in this country do all the time.

Yes they ease pain but they do not kill. I just strongly believe that no-one has the right to actively end the life of another human being by injecting them, or providing them, with a lethal dose of drugs.

I sympathise greatly with people who have degenerative illnesses, I really do, but I just cannot agree to people being allowed to assist in someone else's death.


Is the problem that it would be a doctor doing it all? would you be happier with it if it was a qualified proffessional who was trained to do this job specifically?

I'm for it, however it would need to be heavily regulated, possibly a bit like organ donorship, where you have to have given permission to donate your organs. Maybe you should sign a consent form once you reach a certain age that would then come into effect should you have a terminal illness.

It is a lot to do with the fact that it's a doctor who would be doing it. I am extremely opposed to doctors helping patients to die because that is not what, I believe, a doctor's job is supposed to be about. Their job is to treat people and help them get better. If getting better isn't possible then their role is to try and make that person as comfortable and pain-free as possible.

I still wouldn't support it, even if it was to be someone else who was carrying out the deaths but, if it was to become legal in Scotland, I would prefer that option to the one where doctors would be carrying out the assisted dying.

I don't think the consent form idea would be a good approach. A lot of elderly people already see themselves as a burden on their family as it is. If this option was open to them, I could see a lot of people signing up to it, not because they don't want to suffer a slow and painful decline but because they don't want to be an even bigger burden on their family.

For me, that's a bad idea.

[Phil D. Rolls]

My apologies for taking so long to reply to those two posts. I have been away quite a lot in the past couple of weeks so this is the first chance I have had to respond.



Yes they ease pain but they do not kill. I just strongly believe that no-one has the right to actively end the life of another human being by injecting them, or providing them, with a lethal dose of drugs.

I sympathise greatly with people who have degenerative illnesses, I really do, but I just cannot agree to people being allowed to assist in someone else's death.



It is a lot to do with the fact that it's a doctor who would be doing it. I am extremely opposed to doctors helping patients to die because that is not what, I believe, a doctor's job is supposed to be about. Their job is to treat people and help them get better. If getting better isn't possible then their role is to try and make that person as comfortable and pain-free as possible.

I still wouldn't support it, even if it was to be someone else who was carrying out the deaths but, if it was to become legal in Scotland, I would prefer that option to the one where doctors would be carrying out the assisted dying.

I don't think the consent form idea would be a good approach. A lot of elderly people already see themselves as a burden on their family as it is. If this option was open to them, I could see a lot of people signing up to it, not because they don't want to suffer a slow and painful decline but because they don't want to be an even bigger burden on their family.

For me, that's a bad idea.

Would ending life - an inevitability for us all - not fix that problem?

Your concern about pressure to consent is one that I raised earlier. I think it is something that people have to consider if they are going to let this genie out of the bottle. Personally, I think the survival instinct is strong in the majority of people, and I think few people would consent to their own death if they didn't want to die.