Assisted Suicide

[Future17]

Based on Margo MacDonald's bill as described below, would you be in favour of the law changing to allow assisted suicide in Scotland?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8471553.stm

[Woody1985]

I have said yes based on what I've just read.

My main concern would be in relation to the 'physically incapable' statement and what defines that.

If I lost a leg for example, I'd be inclined to say **** this but after a few months I may change my mind. Perhaps the cooling period could be longer.

However, if I was terminally ill and was told I had to wait 30/60 days I'd be pretty pissed off.

Personally, if I was ever turned into a vegetable I wouldn't want to live.

[Betty Boop]

Absolutely yes, people who are terminally ill should be allowed to die at a time of their choosing.

[J-C]

I think in special surcumstances when the health of a person is such that they are basically living like a vegetable and lif support machines are keeping them alive, then yes there is a case for this on humanitarian grounds.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'd make it compulsory for Jambos. And i'd be willing to help them.

[Killiehibbie]

It happens now with 'do not resuscitate' orders and the like. If it put me out of my misery i'd like a say in that rather than somebody else deciding when it was time for me to go.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Having watched my father wither away with cancer many years ago and just witnessed my Mother in Law's death, without a shadow of doubt. In fact I would go further and say it should be bloody well compulsory in some cases.

[Hibbie_Cameron]

I would be in favour of it if the person was termianlly ill or as stated "living like a vegetable". I know i would personally not want to put my family through the emotional turmoil that such illnesses bring

I really feel for these people who assist the deaths of their loved ones. What a horrid situation to be in

[HibsMax]

I'm in favour of it. It's nobody's decision but mine when I decide my life has become too intolerable to live. The idea of people arguing against that turns my stomach to be honest. I can't imagine suffering for months or years but not being able to end my pain because some group of people say I don't have the right. F*** them!

But of course there have to be safe guards.

[ancient hibee]

Absolutely yes, people who are terminally ill should be allowed to die at a time of their choosing.
Anyone can die at a time of their choosing at the moment.The purpose of the bill is to allow them to be assisted.

[khib70]

Anyone can die at a time of their choosing at the moment.The purpose of the bill is to allow them to be assisted.
And to allow them to die with dignity, under proper medical supervision, without the risk of pain or damage from botched overdoses etc. It's not about people doing away with themselves on a whim - it's only relevant to terminally ill people whose quality of life is hugely deteriorated.

[lapsedhibee]

Anyone can die at a time of their choosing at the moment.The purpose of the bill is to allow them to be assisted.
Not sure that's true. In the latter stages of a severe degenerative disease, it might be physically impossible to carry out the deed without the aid/acquiescence of a carer.

[Dinkydoo]

Yes, definately.

If either myself or a family member was suffering badly I'd like the choice and I'd like them to have the choice over whether it's time to go or not.

After all, hospitals are all about prevention - everyone dies (except maybe Michael Myers :wink:).

If thier methods of prevention are going to keep said person here for a little while longer but in severe agony, I think it's only right to allow them to make that decision.

[joe breezy]

Quality not quantity for me, I'm gonna get a gun if I deteriorate too much and do it masel

[Speedy]

My Gran died last year after spending quite a long time in the Marie Curie hospice and, although she had her good days and bad days, by the end she didn't have the strength to talk.

She struggled through a few weeks where my mum was 'waiting on the phone call' and it's certainly not what I want to experience in 50/60/70 years.

[lapsedhibee]

Quality not quantity for me, I'm gonna get a gun if I deteriorate too much and do it masel

:agree: and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

[(((Fergus)))]

What is it that has changed in society to make assisted suicide so popular?

[heretoday]

It's a difficult question, isn't it?

Do we want to get to the stage where we check out at the first sign of serious illness or do we want to stick it out to the bitter end in the knowledge that this is the only life we will get and it's worth squeezing the last drop out of it despite the agony, indignity or paralysis.

I suppose I'd say personally that if the only existence was one with constant pain, immobility or indignity and that could not be alleviated by palliative drugs then yeah - zap it in and god bless the Hibees.

[Future17]

What is it that has changed in society to make assisted suicide so popular?

Was thinking that myself which was one of the reasons I started the thread. I'm wondering if it's because our understanding of terminal and degenerative diseases has improved, we're more aware of the true impact of these types of conditions.

I suppose people are living longer nowadays as well so we're more likely to see someone we care about affected in this sort of way.

[(((Fergus)))]

Was thinking that myself which was one of the reasons I started the thread. I'm wondering if it's because our understanding of terminal and degenerative diseases has improved, we're more aware of the true impact of these types of conditions.

I suppose people are living longer nowadays as well so we're more likely to see someone we care about affected in this sort of way.

I think this is a myth to be honest. The average age may or may not be increasing (depends on whether you include abortion statistics and/or discount the high infant mortality of some earlier times), however the oldest people today are no older than individuals have been through recorded history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus_of_Abdera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosius_of_Córdoba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Azzo_II,_Margrave_of_Milan

"In 1900, the average 65-year-old could expect another 12 years of life, on average. A century later, in 2000, life expectancy post-65 had increased to 19 years for women and 16 years for men. Similarly, in 1900, 85-year-old Americans could expect an additional four years of life. By 2000, that statistic increased seven years for women and six years for men."

[lapsedhibee]

I think this is a myth to be honest. The average age may or may not be increasing (depends on whether you include abortion statistics and/or discount the high infant mortality of some earlier times), however the oldest people today are no older than individuals have been through recorded history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus_of_Abdera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosius_of_Córdoba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Azzo_II,_Margrave_of_Milan

"In 1900, the average 65-year-old could expect another 12 years of life, on average. A century later, in 2000, life expectancy post-65 had increased to 19 years for women and 16 years for men. Similarly, in 1900, 85-year-old Americans could expect an additional four years of life. By 2000, that statistic increased seven years for women and six years for men."

You appear to contradict yourself. You start by saying it's a myth that people are living longer, and finish by demonstrating that the life expectancy of 65-year olds has increased and the life expectancy of of 85-year olds has increased. Have you got some evidence to show that the contradiction is only apparent? Hard to see how infant mortality would play any part in those stats.

On the face of it those figures you quote would tend to support the idea that there would be more degenerative disease to cope with in 2000 than in 1900. An idea you seem unwilling to accept.

Hard also to see how abortion stats affect life expectancy. Isn't abortion generally carried out before people are born? :confused:

[s.a.m]

You appear to contradict yourself. You start by saying it's a myth that people are living longer, and finish by demonstrating that the life expectancy of 65-year olds has increased and the life expectancy of of 85-year olds has increased. Have you got some evidence to show that the contradiction is only apparent? Hard to see how infant mortality would play any part in those stats.

On the face of it those figures you quote would tend to support the idea that there would be more degenerative disease to cope with in 2000 than in 1900. An idea you seem unwilling to accept.

Hard also to see how abortion stats affect life expectancy. Isn't abortion generally carried out before people are born? :confused:

I think, tbf, he is correct (though I wouldn't know the exact stats) that life expectancy (which is an average score) in earlier times was heavilly influenced by very high rates of infant mortality. Those who survived infancy had life expectancy prospects that weren't so different from those we experience today. So basically, if you based your life expectancy averages on the over 5s for previous eras, you would see very different figures than those averages which include small children.

Abortion is not included because it takes place before 24weeks, and they are therefore not registered as deaths - along with spontaneous, natural miscarriages before 24 weeks. And I'm absolutely not trying to start an abortion debate here! If anyone tries, I will be Very Cross!:grr:

[hibeeliam]

i think it should only be available to peole whos standard of life is so dismal that the are incapeable of doing simple tasks or wont be able to do simple tasks in the forseeable future. but if there is also a religious argument that would come from christians, jews, muslims and hindus. they would say that god, allah or whichever god they worship created us so they (god) should decide when we die. i also think the law on euthanasia is far too complicated and should be made much more clearer

[Killiehibbie]

I think this is a myth to be honest. The average age may or may not be increasing (depends on whether you include abortion statistics and/or discount the high infant mortality of some earlier times), however the oldest people today are no older than individuals have been through recorded history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus_of_Abdera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus_of_Abdera)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosius_of_Córdoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosius_of_C%C3%B3rdoba)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Azzo_II,_Margrave_of_Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Azzo_II,_Margrave_of_Milan)

"In 1900, the average 65-year-old could expect another 12 years of life, on average. A century later, in 2000, life expectancy post-65 had increased to 19 years for women and 16 years for men. Similarly, in 1900, 85-year-old Americans could expect an additional four years of life. By 2000, that statistic increased seven years for women and six years for men."


You can make the figures look different depending on your starting point. How many more years did the average 40 year old have in 1900 compared to the 2000 40 year old?

[lapsedhibee]

I think, tbf, he is correct (though I wouldn't know the exact stats) that life expectancy (which is an average score) in earlier times was heavilly influenced by very high rates of infant mortality. Those who survived infancy had life expectancy prospects that weren't so different from those we experience today. So basically, if you based your life expectancy averages on the over 5s for previous eras, you would see very different figures than those averages which include small children.

But the figures quoted are increased life expectancies at 65 and at 85. In other words, infant mortality is already taken out (because it occurs before age 65). So how is he correct? :confused:


Abortion is not included because it takes place before 24weeks, and they are therefore not registered as deaths - along with spontaneous, natural miscarriages before 24 weeks.
So if abortion isn't included, why is it mentioned? :confused: Are you trying to start an abortion debate? :dunno: :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

You can make the figures look different depending on your starting point. How many more years did the average 40 year old have in 1900 compared to the 2000 40 year old?

Yes, that's the thing about statistics, you make them say what you want, e.g., 'we are living longer today' which is taken as an indisputable fact and proof of progress. Sadly, this supposedly valuable thing 'life' is such a torture for so many people that they - or their relatives - want to end it.

To answer your question, I don't know about 40 year olds but I'd expect the pattern to be similar. Once you'd survived infancy you were basically OK.

[(((Fergus)))]

But the figures quoted are increased life expectancies at 65 and at 85. In other words, infant mortality is already taken out (because it occurs before age 65). So how is he correct? :confused:

So if abortion isn't included, why is it mentioned? :confused: Are you trying to start an abortion debate? :dunno: :wink:

The point is that the difference in life expectancy at those ages is minimal when compared with the misleading average that is usually quoted.

I don't have the data yet, but it would be interesting to see how much fluctuation there is over the years, i.e., what the trend is over the centuries. I wonder if anyone has done this work...?

[lapsedhibee]

The point is that the difference in life expectancy at those ages is minimal when compared with the misleading average that is usually quoted.

Minimal? :confused:

On the figures you have quoted, the life expectancies between 1900 and 2000 increased for the ages/sexes quoted by, respectively, 58%, 33%, 75% and 50%. These large increases, using any rational basis available, lend support to the idea that there would be more of a social problem in 2000 than in 1900 with degenerative diseases of old age. Your statistics lend support to Future17's post suggesting that this might be a reason for an increasing acceptance of assisted suicide. You appear to think they help refute his idea. :confused:

[s.a.m]

But the figures quoted are increased life expectancies at 65 and at 85. In other words, infant mortality is already taken out (because it occurs before age 65). So how is he correct? :confused:

To be honest, I'm not sure what he's getting at there - I was just agreeing with the bit about comparisons between historical life expectancies which were heavilly skewed by the appalling numbers who died at birth, or in early childhood, and current ones.


So if abortion isn't included, why is it mentioned? :confused: Are you trying to start an abortion debate? :dunno: :wink:

I only mentioned it because Fergus seemed to be suggesting that they should be. And I secretly (so don't tell anyone...) think that he was trying to start an abortion debate>

:grr: Before you know it, folk will be talking about green Union Jacks, and Tricolors.:grr:

[da-robster]

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know if there is any difference between assisted suicide and euthaniasia, and if so why are they used interchangeabley.

My view is that it is the person's choice whether they want to live or die,and no one else should be allowed to force them to continue sufferering, or indeed kill them when they want to live. Of course the person in question would have to be sane, or have written something before saying what they wished to happen, and safeguards must be used.

There will undoubtedly and sadly be people who would take advantage of this and any law would have to stop them from doing this.

Basically I feel that it is a person's choice if they want to die and so long as the system is designed to stop anybody taking advantage, financially or any other way it is a good idea.

[Future17]

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know if there is any difference between assisted suicide and euthaniasia, and if so why are they used interchangeabley.

Although the true definitions are probably the same, I think the media tend to use euthanasia when the person dying is not in a position to give their consent.

[(((Fergus)))]

Minimal? :confused:

On the figures you have quoted, the life expectancies between 1900 and 2000 increased for the ages/sexes quoted by, respectively, 58%, 33%, 75% and 50%. These large increases, using any rational basis available, lend support to the idea that there would be more of a social problem in 2000 than in 1900 with degenerative diseases of old age. Your statistics lend support to Future17's post suggesting that this might be a reason for an increasing acceptance of assisted suicide. You appear to think they help refute his idea. :confused:

We're talking about differences of between four and seven years at the end of life based on a comparison between two specific years and for two specific ages. In my opinion, the data source is so specific and the difference is so small that it would be unwise to draw any definite conclusions from it. Even if it were the case that every person in the UK lives 4-7 years longer than in 1900 (but what about 1800, 1700, etc.?), it is not the case that degenerative illness always or even frequently begins in the final 4-7 years of life.

Even if it did, this does not explain why people nowadays are turning to assisted suicide. Why didn't people in 1900 propose it as a law, albeit for people with a 4/7-year shorter life expectancy than now?

This brings us I think to one of the reasons assisted suicide is only now becoming an issue: because the suffering experienced by some sick people today is so much more unbearable than it was in the past. If this is true, then why is it so unbearable?

[(((Fergus)))]

I only mentioned it because Fergus seemed to be suggesting that they should be. And I secretly (so don't tell anyone...) think that he was trying to start an abortion debate>

:grr: Before you know it, folk will be talking about green Union Jacks, and Tricolors.:grr:

I wasn't trying to start an abortion debate - honest. :greengrin

I do admit though that I was trying to start a debate about how different our society would be if all those aborted kids were still with us - although this thread probably isn't the place.

[lapsedhibee]

We're talking about differences of between four and seven years at the end of life based on a comparison between two specific years and for two specific ages. In my opinion, the data source is so specific and the difference is so small that it would be unwise to draw any definite conclusions from it. Even if it were the case that every person in the UK lives 4-7 years longer than in 1900 (but what about 1800, 1700, etc.?), it is not the case that degenerative illness always or even frequently begins in the final 4-7 years of life.

Even if it did, this does not explain why people nowadays are turning to assisted suicide. Why didn't people in 1900 propose it as a law, albeit for people with a 4/7-year shorter life expectancy than now?

This brings us I think to one of the reasons assisted suicide is only now becoming an issue: because the suffering experienced by some sick people today is so much more unbearable than it was in the past. If this is true, then why is it so unbearable?

Yes, agree, it's not the case that degenerative illness always begins in the last few years of life. It wouldn't have to, for longer life expectancy to result in more degenerative illness. For example, simplistically and purely to make the illustrative point, if degenerative illness typically began at age 60, then a life expectancy of 75 compared with 70 would mean that there would be 50% more degenerative illness around and hence (as Future17 originally suggested) more awareness of problems associated with it.

Can't really see where your continuing doubt about the existence of greater life expectancy comes from. The stats you've quoted are unequivocal. Have you got other stats available to you that you're keeping secret? :dunno:

Another statistical point that Future didn't mention, the ageing demographic in western societies, supports the same 'awareness of degenerative illness' argument.

Could well be that people are wimps today, compared with times past, and that's a reason for them being happy to countenance suicide.

Personally would readily agree that modern people are wimps - you only have to witness the bleating every winter on the tellybox about the unbearable cold when central heating breaks down (eg when there's a wee touch of frost on the inside of windows). Jessies! But another reason for the greater acceptance of the idea of people taking the decision to end their own life might be that people are less prepared now than in 1900 to accept that there's a fire-breathing god who will punish them if they do so, or if they help someone else to achieve that rational end.

[lapsedhibee]

I do admit though that I was trying to start a debate about how different our society would be if all those aborted kids were still with us.

Vrolik Museum would take up the entire Netherlands? :dunno:

[(((Fergus)))]

Yes, agree, it's not the case that degenerative illness always begins in the last few years of life. It wouldn't have to, for longer life expectancy to result in more degenerative illness. For example, simplistically and purely to make the illustrative point, if degenerative illness typically began at age 60, then a life expectancy of 75 compared with 70 would mean that there would be 50% more degenerative illness around and hence (as Future17 originally suggested) more awareness of problems associated with it.

Can't really see where your continuing doubt about the existence of greater life expectancy comes from. The stats you've quoted are unequivocal. Have you got other stats available to you that you're keeping secret? :dunno:

Another statistical point that Future didn't mention, the ageing demographic in western societies, supports the same 'awareness of degenerative illness' argument.

Could well be that people are wimps today, compared with times past, and that's a reason for them being happy to countenance suicide.

Personally would readily agree that modern people are wimps - you only have to witness the bleating every winter on the tellybox about the unbearable cold when central heating breaks down (eg when there's a wee touch of frost on the inside of windows). Jessies! But another reason for the greater acceptance of the idea of people taking the decision to end their own life might be that people are less prepared now than in 1900 to accept that there's a fire-breathing god who will punish them if they do so, or if they help someone else to achieve that rational end.

Unfortunately that too isn't as clear cut. MS for example is typically diagnosed between 20 and 50 years of age.

Also to suggest that people are acquiring degenerative illnesses at the same age as in 1900* but are now living an extra 4-7 years in that state of suffering doesn't say a lot for 'progress'. Especially when many of those people (or at least their families) would rather do without those extra years!

It will be very interesting to see how the reduction in average lifespan resulting from assisted suicide will be presented as 'progressive' by the relevant authorities! After all, this statistic is frequently used as 'evidence' that the health of the nation is improving.

* I will try to find comparative statistics on illness for 1900 and now.

[lapsedhibee]

Unfortunately that too isn't as clear cut. MS for example is typically diagnosed between 20 and 50 years of age.

Yes, agree, but the mathematical point still stands.


Also to suggest that people are acquiring degenerative illnesses at the same age as in 1900* but are now living an extra 4-7 years in that state of suffering doesn't say a lot for 'progress'.

I'm not sure that anyone anywhere has argued that the better living standards available in 2000 compared with 1900 should delay the onset of a degenerative illness like Alzheimer's. If people are living an extra 4-7 years in a state of suffering, that would seem to be an argument in favour of increasing the means available to end the suffering.


Especially when many of those people (or at least their families) would rather do without those extra years!

If people are living longer in a state of suffering, and they think that's a bad thing, that's a reason to be in favour of assisted suicide, isn't it? Or are you implying that it would be better to aspire to the living conditions, state of medical knowledge, etc etc, prevalent in 1900?


It will be very interesting to see how the reduction in average lifespan resulting from assisted suicide will be presented as 'progressive' by the relevant authorities! After all, this statistic is frequently used as 'evidence' that the health of the nation is improving.

As a purely logical-mathematical point, the average health of the nation is bound to improve if people suffering from degenerative illness are removed from the equation. But, agree, the government would spin it any which way.

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10461894.stm

Interesting article on the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland claiming that it is now a business worth millions and being run like any other business.

This pretty much sums up why I am against assisted suicide being introduced here as it is a very very slippery slope to get on. I realise that it will be started with the best intentions for the few that desperately want to end their daily suffering and if it remained like that I'd be happy to see legislation pushed through. However, this article pretty much confirms my worries about it. What starts as a piece of legislation to help those in terrible suffering who want to end their pain could lead to elderly people that have become to old to care for themselves and a burden on their family pressurised into ending their lives as they feel that they are becoming a burden.

I worry about how difficult it would be to legislate to avoid these problems, giving those that have a genuine and real need to end their life because of a severe disability, or terminal illness the chance to do so, while protecting against those that are vulnerable such as those that are depressed, those that are elderly and need care but only go down this route due to pressure/feeling they should do this even though they don't really want to, or are not thinking straight.