Right-to-die law rejected by MSP's

[Sir David Gray]

I know this is a controversial debate and there have been many heated discussions on here about this issue in the past but I thought it was important to point this story out.

Personally I am delighted that this proposed law has been defeated. Whilst I have every sympathy for those facing terminal illnesses and those who are experiencing extreme pain on a daily basis, I just cannot agree with allowing a doctor to assist in helping a patient to end their life.

That, for me, goes completely against the role of a doctor. They should never help someone to die under any circumstances. Their job is either to help someone to recover from an illness or, in cases where recovery is not possible, their job is to try and make that patient's life as comfortable and bearable as possible until their natural death.

I can understand where Margo MacDonald is coming from, but if this law had been allowed to be introduced, I believe that it would have had catastrophic results for Scottish society.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Completely disagree.

If someone is terminally ill and suffering badly, with no hope of a recovery then that person should be allowed the right to choose how and when they want to die. We shouldn't be leaving them to suffer needlessly.

I understand your concerns that this could have on society and it is something that would have to be very carefully managed to avoid any chance of abuse, however I firmly believe that we are capable of doing that properly.

I heard two arguments against it last night on the news, the first was that it wasn't christian, well given that a great many people in the country are not christian, and in fact don't even believe in god I'm not sure that our policy on this should be guided by the church.

The second more compelling argument was from someone who had clear disabilities, his concern was that people would be pressured into assisted death as it would become cheaper than continued treatment. I'd like to think we could put sufficient processes in place to avoid this but I think its a good example fo the scenarios that would have to be planned against.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I know this is a controversial debate and there have been many heated discussions on here about this issue in the past but I thought it was important to point this story out.

Personally I am delighted that this proposed law has been defeated. Whilst I have every sympathy for those facing terminal illnesses and those who are experiencing extreme pain on a daily basis, I just cannot agree with allowing a doctor to assist in helping a patient to end their life.

That, for me, goes completely against the role of a doctor. They should never help someone to die under any circumstances. Their job is either to help someone to recover from an illness or, in cases where recovery is not possible, their job is to try and make that patient's life as comfortable and bearable as possible until their natural death.

I can understand where Margo MacDonald is coming from, but if this law had been allowed to be introduced, I believe that it would have had catastrophic results for Scottish society.
would it not be better if the person who's helping you die has a medical background?

also, are there any cases where the legalisation of euthanasia have lead to catastrophe? switzerland seem to be doing ok. surely it's preferable to a) pointless, demeaning suffering, b) people going to jail for assisting in loved ones suicides and c) botched, amateur attempts resulting in more pain and probably convictions?

[Beefster]

I know this is a controversial debate and there have been many heated discussions on here about this issue in the past but I thought it was important to point this story out.

Personally I am delighted that this proposed law has been defeated. Whilst I have every sympathy for those facing terminal illnesses and those who are experiencing extreme pain on a daily basis, I just cannot agree with allowing a doctor to assist in helping a patient to end their life.

That, for me, goes completely against the role of a doctor. They should never help someone to die under any circumstances. Their job is either to help someone to recover from an illness or, in cases where recovery is not possible, their job is to try and make that patient's life as comfortable and bearable as possible until their natural death.

I can understand where Margo MacDonald is coming from, but if this law had been allowed to be introduced, I believe that it would have had catastrophic results for Scottish society.

With respect, isn't that a doctor's decision to make? Why should you, I or an MSP be telling a doctor what his role is or telling someone with severe MS or locked-in syndrome that their suffering isn't that bad after all and they should just grin (if they are able) and bear it?

We're a nation of busybodies who like to pontificate on how people should live their lives, even when it doesn't impact on society. The law should be there to protect society but not to unnecessarily place restrictions on an individual's right to live their lives as they see fit.

[greenlex]

Margo will be re elected next year and be back with the bill or similar next parliment.

[Hibbyradge]

I know this is a controversial debate and there have been many heated discussions on here about this issue in the past but I thought it was important to point this story out.

Personally I am delighted that this proposed law has been defeated. Whilst I have every sympathy for those facing terminal illnesses and those who are experiencing extreme pain on a daily basis, I just cannot agree with allowing a doctor to assist in helping a patient to end their life.

That, for me, goes completely against the role of a doctor. They should never help someone to die under any circumstances. Their job is either to help someone to recover from an illness or, in cases where recovery is not possible, their job is to try and make that patient's life as comfortable and bearable as possible until their natural death.

I can understand where Margo MacDonald is coming from, but if this law had been allowed to be introduced, I believe that it would have had catastrophic results for Scottish society.

How does Switzerland cope with their laws? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

Margo will be re elected next year and be back with the bill or similar next parliment.

For all sorts of reasons, I hope you are right. Her own health, though, may preclude that.

[Pretty Boy]

Not going to get hugely involved in this because it's a debate that provokes heated reactions and i'm not particularly keen to get bogged down in a moral argument.

However speaking personally i belive my life is my own and if i decide i want to end it then i will do so with or without the help of a doctor. I believe that if a person is in a position where they are able to confirm that having their life ended is what they wish to happen or they have made it clear in a legal document that this is the case then they should be allowed professional help to maake this as painless and easy as possible.

There obviously has to be certain restrictions. I believe there was a case reasonably recently where someone with severe depression was given assistance to die in Switzerland. I would oppose this, and i don't say that lightly having been battled both depression and addiction in the past and to some extent in the present. However with the right care depression is a treatable illness. On the other hand i see no reason why someone with terminal cancer, MS, Motor neurone disease etc should not be allowed to make the decision to die on their own terms with dignity. I still remember vividly my Grandad wasting away in a hospital bed with cancer spread throughout his body, he told me one night that he had accepted that it was his time to die and he was ready and prepared for it, i had to watch him slip in and out of consciousness for another 4 weeks before his body finally gave up. Where is the dignity in that? 4 weeks of pain and suffering could have been avoided.

I know those of a religous persuasion will argue that 'God giveth and God taketh away' and that is their right, they would also have the right to refuse assisted suicide. As someone who has no belief in God i have no fear of commiting the 'sin of despair', i would like the right to choose to die as and when i am ready, i would also like my family, friends and others who are suffering to have the same right.

[steakbake]

For all sorts of reasons, I hope you are right. Her own health, though, may preclude that.

Margo is one of the few politicians actually worth voting for. I wish there were more like her.

[Phil D. Rolls]

How does Switzerland cope with their laws? :dunno:

I don't know, but I do know that in Holland, where similar legislation exists, the path has not been smooth.

I am broadly for Margo's bill, but I can appreciate other arguments, other than the religious one. Having had personal experience of someone in a persistent vegetative state, I was very angered by the thoughts of people like Father James Morrow, who felt that they had the right to impose their beliefs on others.

It also concerns me that voluntary euthanasia could become a common practice, and a solution for some to the "dementia time bomb". The ethical issues are very complex.

[Phil D. Rolls]

With respect, isn't that a doctor's decision to make? Why should you, I or an MSP be telling a doctor what his role is or telling someone with severe MS or locked-in syndrome that their suffering isn't that bad after all and they should just grin (if they are able) and bear it?

We're a nation of busybodies who like to pontificate on how people should live their lives, even when it doesn't impact on society. The law should be there to protect society but not to unnecessarily place restrictions on an individual's right to live their lives as they see fit.

A doctor said Al Megrahi had 3 months to live. They are not infallible or uncorruptable.

As well as that, research suggests that most people who commit suicide don't want to die, they just don't want to live the way they are. With that in mind, it's a very tough call for anyone to make.

That said, I agree, the individual should be the ultimate arbiter on matters that affect their life.

[bighairyfaeleith]

A doctor said Al Megrahi had 3 months to live. They are not infallible or uncorruptable.

As well as that, research suggests that most people who commit suicide don't want to die, they just don't want to live the way they are. With that in mind, it's a very tough call for anyone to make.

That said, I agree, the individual should be the ultimate arbiter on matters that affect their life.

This ie really just about terminally ill people though is it not?

Other folks don't need any assistance to croak it.

Your right though its a tricky thing to implement right. However its completely wrong, actually its un-christian to leave people dying slowly in pain against there wishes.

[lapsedhibee]

dementia time bomb
Where are these on sale? My aged parents are getting a bit past it now.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Where are these on sale? My aged parents are getting a bit past it now.

There must be some on sale down tynie way, seems to a fair bit if memory loss happens down that way. Mind you I'd probably try and forget most of the things that club gets up to as well if I was a hearts fan:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

There must be some on sale down tynie way, seems to a fair bit if memory loss happens down that way. Mind you I'd probably try and forget most of the things that club gets up to as well if I was a hearts fan:greengrin

Maybe you are a Hearts fan but have forgotten. :devil:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Maybe you are a Hearts fan but have forgotten. :devil:

Yeah but the lingering odour would remind me:greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Not going to get hugely involved in this because it's a debate that provokes heated reactions and i'm not particularly keen to get bogged down in a moral argument.

However speaking personally i belive my life is my own and if i decide i want to end it then i will do so with or without the help of a doctor. I believe that if a person is in a position where they are able to confirm that having their life ended is what they wish to happen or they have made it clear in a legal document that this is the case then they should be allowed professional help to maake this as painless and easy as possible.

There obviously has to be certain restrictions. I believe there was a case reasonably recently where someone with severe depression was given assistance to die in Switzerland. I would oppose this, and i don't say that lightly having been battled both depression and addiction in the past and to some extent in the present. However with the right care depression is a treatable illness. On the other hand i see no reason why someone with terminal cancer, MS, Motor neurone disease etc should not be allowed to make the decision to die on their own terms with dignity. I still remember vividly my Grandad wasting away in a hospital bed with cancer spread throughout his body, he told me one night that he had accepted that it was his time to die and he was ready and prepared for it, i had to watch him slip in and out of consciousness for another 4 weeks before his body finally gave up. Where is the dignity in that? 4 weeks of pain and suffering could have been avoided.

I know those of a religous persuasion will argue that 'God giveth and God taketh away' and that is their right, they would also have the right to refuse assisted suicide. As someone who has no belief in God i have no fear of commiting the 'sin of despair', i would like the right to choose to die as and when i am ready, i would also like my family, friends and others who are suffering to have the same right.

I am glad you added this bit in, as I believe that that is the final arbiter of life!

Earlier on, you avered 'my life is your own' and there is an obvious question in that well beyond that of your Mum and Dad!

Why should a human being who has absolutely zero control over gene and DNA make-up in his/her embryonic state have any right to end what they could not create??

[CropleyWasGod]

I am glad you added this bit in, as I believe that that is the final arbiter of life!

Earlier on, you avered 'my life is your own' and there is an obvious question in that well beyond that of your Mum and Dad!

Why should a human being who has absolutely zero control over gene and DNA make-up in his/her embryonic state have any right to end what they could not create??

By that token, then, would you support the criminalising of attempted suicide?

As for the point about "control", we develop that control. That's part of the human condition. Otherwise one might just say "it's not my fault. It's all about my genes. I couldn't control it".

[ancienthibby]

By that token, then, would you support the criminalising of attempted suicide?

As for the point about "control", we develop that control. That's part of the human condition. Otherwise one might just say "it's not my fault. It's all about my genes. I couldn't control it".


Oh dearie me, the assumptions that are made when we try to impose our beliefs on others!!

Where in this thread did I ever suggest criminalising people for attempting suicide?

Your words and other mouths - do not confuse!!.








































advocate

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh dearie me, the assumptions that are made when we try to impose our beliefs on others!!

Where in this thread did I ever suggest criminalising people for attempting suicide?

Your words and other mouths - do not confuse!!.








































advocate

No need to be so patronising. It was a genuine question.

[ancienthibby]

No need to be so patronising. It was a genuine question.

Apologies!!

Was not intended on my part. :boo hoo:

[CropleyWasGod]

Apologies!!

Was not intended on my part. :boo hoo:

Fair play.

But I assume the answer was "no" :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Fair play.

But I assume the answer was "no" :greengrin

The serious answer to your first point is absolutely NO!!

To your second point, I would say that this is a minefield as to what/whom 'controls' human action. And I know the jails of the world are full of people who would say: 'it wisnae me, the voices told me to do it'

That said, my point remains that no human has any control over what their DNA make-up is and so, to get back to the original point, why should that control be sought/even demanded over the end of life??

[bighairyfaeleith]

The serious answer to your first point is absolutely NO!!

To your second point, I would say that this is a minefield as to what/whom 'controls' human action. And I know the jails of the world are full of people who would say: 'it wisnae me, the voices told me to do it'

That said, my point remains that no human has any control over what their DNA make-up is and so, to get back to the original point, why should that control be sought/even demanded over the end of life??

Why does having no control over your dna have to link to you being allowed to choose to die witha bit of dignity when your days are numbered?

I am truly baffled and can't see any logic behind it:confused:

Further to that, by not criminalising attempted suicide you are allowing people who are able bodied the right to choose when to die but taking it away from people who are to sick to do it unaided. How is that right?

[greenlex]

I am glad you added this bit in, as I believe that that is the final arbiter of life!

Earlier on, you avered 'my life is your own' and there is an obvious question in that well beyond that of your Mum and Dad!

Why should a human being who has absolutely zero control over gene and DNA make-up in his/her embryonic state have any right to end what they could not create??
why shouldn't they? It's their body. Their life. Not their parents. It doesn't belong to God either. The only person living that life is that person. If someone is terminaly I'll and suffering it should be their right to chose to end it. Not yours. Not Gods. Not a politicians. Not a Parents. Not a sons or daughters. Only theirs. Denying them a legal right to do this is like sentencing them to a life that they fo not want. It's wrong.
I do hope Margo is back with a bill in future and wins

[discman]

why shouldn't they? It's their body. Their life. Not their parents. It doesn't belong to God either. The only person living that life is that person. If someone is terminaly I'll and suffering it should be their right to chose to end it. Not yours. Not Gods. Not a politicians. Not a Parents. Not a sons or daughters. Only theirs. Denying them a legal right to do this is like sentencing them to a life that they fo not want. It's wrong.
I do hope Margo is back with a bill in future and wins


Remines me of the play/movie "Whose life is it anyway?" of course there may be some "mistakes" however am sure that is offset by the majority of cases where people know exactly what they want and why, maybe a "sort of" living will protocol could be introduced,it merits further debate, currently market forces have more freedoms than us! :cool2:

[Greentinted]

Not going to get hugely involved in this because it's a debate that provokes heated reactions and i'm not particularly keen to get bogged down in a moral argument.

However speaking personally i belive my life is my own and if i decide i want to end it then i will do so with or without the help of a doctor. I believe that if a person is in a position where they are able to confirm that having their life ended is what they wish to happen or they have made it clear in a legal document that this is the case then they should be allowed professional help to maake this as painless and easy as possible.


Like you, I am loath to enter this debate at full throttle but I was reminded of the sentiments expressed in bold above in a book I have lying around the house which deals with low self-esteem, psychological instability and addiction (amongst so many other things).

" My life was mine, and mine alone to end. My body was mine to destroy. I had no business involving anybody else."

That for me, says it all.

[Sir David Gray]

Apologies for taking so long to make another contribution to this thread!


Completely disagree.

If someone is terminally ill and suffering badly, with no hope of a recovery then that person should be allowed the right to choose how and when they want to die. We shouldn't be leaving them to suffer needlessly.

I understand your concerns that this could have on society and it is something that would have to be very carefully managed to avoid any chance of abuse, however I firmly believe that we are capable of doing that properly.

I heard two arguments against it last night on the news, the first was that it wasn't christian, well given that a great many people in the country are not christian, and in fact don't even believe in god I'm not sure that our policy on this should be guided by the church.

The second more compelling argument was from someone who had clear disabilities, his concern was that people would be pressured into assisted death as it would become cheaper than continued treatment. I'd like to think we could put sufficient processes in place to avoid this but I think its a good example fo the scenarios that would have to be planned against.

Personally, I completely agree with the arguments that you have made reference to and they are more or less the reasons why I am absolutely 100% against assisted suicide/euthanasia.

I consider myself to be a religious person and therefore I would disagree with it on that basis. Clearly very little can be done to stop someone who is determined to commit suicide on their own, by jumping in front of a train for example, but I strongly believe that no human being has the right to administer a lethal drug, or something similar, that ends the life of another human being, regardless of whether it's a doctor or another family member.

For me, the vital question that I would ask is can the person live naturally without the use of any machines or drugs keeping them alive or do they require the assistance of medical equipment to keep them alive? If the answer to the first question is yes then I cannot possibly support that person having their life ended. If life is only continuing because the person is on life support and/or they are taking medication and they would die if they stopped taking it, I think in those circumstances, these people should be able to stop taking medication, as long as they were made completely aware of the subsequent consequences of doing that and that they were of absolute sound mind at the time of their decision.

For me, there is a huge difference between withdrawing a drug or a piece of equipment that is keeping someone alive and giving someone a lethal drug that will actively kill them.

I just find the concept of that completely unacceptable.

As for the second argument that you have made reference to, I completely agree with that as well. I am also someone who has a disability and although there are people who are a lot worse off than myself, I am probably classed as being "severely disabled". I am extremely concerned that with this type of law, people with severe disabilities could be pressured into saying that they want their life to end so that they are no longer a burden on their family. It's not good enough for the pro-euthanasia lobbyists to say;

"I'd like to think we could put sufficient processes in place to avoid this".

I will never be convinced that people with disabilities or the elderly could ever be fully protected from being manipulated and pressured into an early death and even if only one person was used in such a way, that would be one too many for me.

That is partly the reason for why I am against the death penalty as well. No-one can tell me that if capital punishment was brought in here, no innocent person would ever be executed. Again, even if one innocent person was put to death in Scotland, that would be one too many.

I want to live in a country that values its old people and its disabled people and a country that cares for terminally ill people, and tries to lessen their pain if recovery isn't possible, instead of killing them. Whilst I believe that the vast majority of people who back the introduction of euthanasia, or "right-to-die", laws into this country are doing it for admirable reasons, the introduction of such laws would just mean that we are one step closer to being at the point where the elderly, the disabled and the sick in this country will feel that they are no longer wanted and they are better off dead, even if, deep down, they don't want to die.


would it not be better if the person who's helping you die has a medical background?

also, are there any cases where the legalisation of euthanasia have lead to catastrophe? switzerland seem to be doing ok. surely it's preferable to a) pointless, demeaning suffering, b) people going to jail for assisting in loved ones suicides and c) botched, amateur attempts resulting in more pain and probably convictions?

In terms of your first question, no I don't think that would be better. I am strongly of the opinion that doctors are there to make people better and when that isn't possible, their job is to ensure that the remainder of the patient's life is as pain-free as possible.

A doctor should never be involved in providing a lethal drug with the deliberate intention of ending the life of a patient, who would otherwise have continued to survive, had they not received that drug.

In response to your second question, there have been various accusations put to the founders of the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland over the years, from people who have been in close contact with the organisation.

For the last part of your post, I have touched upon that part of my argument in my response above to another poster.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Apologies for taking so long to make another contribution to this thread!



Personally, I completely agree with the arguments that you have made reference to and they are more or less the reasons why I am absolutely 100% against assisted suicide/euthanasia.

I consider myself to be a religious person and therefore I would disagree with it on that basis. Clearly very little can be done to stop someone who is determined to commit suicide on their own, by jumping in front of a train for example, but I strongly believe that no human being has the right to administer a lethal drug, or something similar, that ends the life of another human being, regardless of whether it's a doctor or another family member.

For me, the vital question that I would ask is can the person live naturally without the use of any machines or drugs keeping them alive or do they require the assistance of medical equipment to keep them alive? If the answer to the first question is yes then I cannot possibly support that person having their life ended. If life is only continuing because the person is on life support and/or they are taking medication and they would die if they stopped taking it, I think in those circumstances, these people should be able to stop taking medication, as long as they were made completely aware of the subsequent consequences of doing that and that they were of absolute sound mind at the time of their decision.

For me, there is a huge difference between withdrawing a drug or a piece of equipment that is keeping someone alive and giving someone a lethal drug that will actively kill them.

I just find the concept of that completely unacceptable.

As for the second argument that you have made reference to, I completely agree with that as well. I am also someone who has a disability and although there are people who are a lot worse off than myself, I am probably classed as being "severely disabled". I am extremely concerned that with this type of law, people with severe disabilities could be pressured into saying that they want their life to end so that they are no longer a burden on their family. It's not good enough for the pro-euthanasia lobbyists to say;

"I'd like to think we could put sufficient processes in place to avoid this".

I will never be convinced that people with disabilities or the elderly could ever be fully protected from being manipulated and pressured into an early death and even if only one person was used in such a way, that would be one too many for me.

That is partly the reason for why I am against the death penalty as well. No-one can tell me that if capital punishment was brought in here, no innocent person would ever be executed. Again, even if one innocent person was put to death in Scotland, that would be one too many.

I want to live in a country that values its old people and its disabled people and a country that cares for terminally ill people, and tries to lessen their pain if recovery isn't possible, instead of killing them. Whilst I believe that the vast majority of people who back the introduction of euthanasia, or "right-to-die", laws into this country are doing it for admirable reasons, the introduction of such laws would just mean that we are one step closer to being at the point where the elderly, the disabled and the sick in this country will feel that they are no longer wanted and they are better off dead, even if, deep down, they don't want to die.



In terms of your first question, no I don't think that would be better. I am strongly of the opinion that doctors are there to make people better and when that isn't possible, their job is to ensure that the remainder of the patient's life is as pain-free as possible.

A doctor should never be involved in providing a lethal drug with the deliberate intention of ending the life of a patient, who would otherwise have continued to survive, had they not received that drug.

In response to your second question, there have been various accusations put to the founders of the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland over the years, from people who have been in close contact with the organisation.

For the last part of your post, I have touched upon that part of my argument in my response above to another poster.

I normally answer back quite quick, normally because rightly or wrongly I know my own mind. However this is a serious issue and far outweighs student fees or anything else in the news right now so I have taken a bit more time.

I cannot give your religious argument any consideration, simply because in my mind religion should play no part in the running of the country. Religion, for me is up there with santa claus (sorry kiddies) it's just lies, So to base our countries laws on it would just be ridiculous. The only benefit I see of religion is it gives some people comfort, but that's not a reason to base our laws on it.

However, as I said in my original post, the second point, would a section of society feel a pressure to agree to assisted suicide if it became legal is a very real concern and I cannot disagree with your concerns. However, I would urge margo to make clearer how she proposes this should be dealt with so that we can make an informed decision. I don't feel, and partly because margo has no party behind her, that any case was made in this regard.

I have a question for you though, could you ever envisage a scenario where if the right things where put in place you could accept this, or do you just not believe that we could ever be trusted to manage such a law?

[--------]

I normally answer back quite quick, normally because rightly or wrongly I know my own mind. However this is a serious issue and far outweighs student fees or anything else in the news right now so I have taken a bit more time.

I cannot give your religious argument any consideration, simply because in my mind religion should play no part in the running of the country. Religion, for me is up there with santa claus (sorry kiddies) it's just lies, So to base our countries laws on it would just be ridiculous. The only benefit I see of religion is it gives some people comfort, but that's not a reason to base our laws on it.

However, as I said in my original post, the second point, would a section of society feel a pressure to agree to assisted suicide if it became legal is a very real concern and I cannot disagree with your concerns. However, I would urge margo to make clearer how she proposes this should be dealt with so that we can make an informed decision. I don't feel, and partly because margo has no party behind her, that any case was made in this regard.

I have a question for you though, could you ever envisage a scenario where if the right things where put in place you could accept this, or do you just not believe that we could ever be trusted to manage such a law?


I have every sympathy for Margo MacDonald in the situation in which she now finds herself. It must be a very daunting prospect she sees before her.

However, I do believe that extreme cases make for bad law. I also. like FalkirkHibee, believe that humanity is created in the image of God, and that human life is therefore sacrosanct. Neither I nor the legal authorities nor medical authorities have the right to take a human life simply because that life has become an inconvenience.

Now before you say it, I know that this isn't what Margo MacDonald is saying - she's arguing from the point of view of someone facing a long period of increasing illness and disability leading to death, and she wants to have the right to end that period when she chooses rather than when death comes naturally to her, with all the pain and suffering that will entail.

But I'm firmly convinced that if euthanasia/mercy-killing is legalised in this country, we WILL come to the place where people ARE under pressure to agree to the ending of their lives. To my knowledge the situation in The Netherlands isn't as secure as advocates of euthanasia/mercy-killing would like us to believe - the legal safeguards aren't as watertight as they should be, and there have been cases where there has been a very strong suspicion that living wills have been drawn up and signed under a significant degree of duress.

It's not actually about religion - mine, or anyone else's. It's about the ethical basis for the practice of medicine laid down by Hippocrates in the 5th century BC. The ethics of the Hippocratic Oath are laid on a foundation of respect for human life and the doctor's responsibility, first and before all else, to do no harm.

IMO these ethical standards have been seriously eroded in the past 50 years; the acceptance of mercy-killing as a legitimate function of the practice of medicine would destroy them completely.

When a person is very elderly, frail, ill, mentally confused and unsure of his or her surroundings or of who the people are who are speaking to him or her, it's very easy to abuse and manipulate them and deprive them of a basic human right like the right not to be killed.

I deal with many people in that state. I can assure you that I've encountered too many situations where the patient's primary fear is that family members, or the doctor at the behest of family members, will decide to shorten his or her life.

There's nothing in the world like the prospect of a legacy for bringing out the absolute worst in human nature. :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have every sympathy for Margo MacDonald in the situation in which she now finds herself. It must be a very daunting prospect she sees before her.

However, I do believe that extreme cases make for bad law. I also. like FalkirkHibee, believe that humanity is created in the image of God, and that human life is therefore sacrosanct. Neither I nor the legal authorities nor medical authorities have the right to take a human life simply because that life has become an inconvenience.

Now before you say it, I know that this isn't what Margo MacDonald is saying - she's arguing from the point of view of someone facing a long period of increasing illness and disability leading to death, and she wants to have the right to end that period when she chooses rather than when death comes naturally to her, with all the pain and suffering that will entail.

But I'm firmly convinced that if euthanasia/mercy-killing is legalised in this country, we WILL come to the place where people ARE under pressure to agree to the ending of their lives. To my knowledge the situation in The Netherlands isn't as secure as advocates of euthanasia/mercy-killing would like us to believe - the legal safeguards aren't as watertight as they should be, and there have been cases where there has been a very strong suspicion that living wills have been drawn up and signed under a significant degree of duress.

It's not actually about religion - mine, or anyone else's. It's about the ethical basis for the practice of medicine laid down by Hippocrates in the 5th century BC. The ethics of the Hippocratic Oath are laid on a foundation of respect for human life and the doctor's responsibility, first and before all else, to do no harm.

IMO these ethical standards have been seriously eroded in the past 50 years; the acceptance of mercy-killing as a legitimate function of the practice of medicine would destroy them completely.

When a person is very elderly, frail, ill, mentally confused and unsure of his or her surroundings or of who the people are who are speaking to him or her, it's very easy to abuse and manipulate them and deprive them of a basic human right like the right not to be killed.

I deal with many people in that state. I can assure you that I've encountered too many situations where the patient's primary fear is that family members, or the doctor at the behest of family members, will decide to shorten his or her life.

There's nothing in the world like the prospect of a legacy for bringing out the absolute worst in human nature. :rolleyes:

Very good points, I have to say my concern is that pressure will be brought to bear on older people. At the same time I also have concerns when I come across an older person who wants nothing more than to "be gathered" and is incapable of doing it.

It's a very complex issue.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have every sympathy for Margo MacDonald in the situation in which she now finds herself. It must be a very daunting prospect she sees before her.

However, I do believe that extreme cases make for bad law. I also. like FalkirkHibee, believe that humanity is created in the image of God, and that human life is therefore sacrosanct. Neither I nor the legal authorities nor medical authorities have the right to take a human life simply because that life has become an inconvenience.

Now before you say it, I know that this isn't what Margo MacDonald is saying - she's arguing from the point of view of someone facing a long period of increasing illness and disability leading to death, and she wants to have the right to end that period when she chooses rather than when death comes naturally to her, with all the pain and suffering that will entail.

But I'm firmly convinced that if euthanasia/mercy-killing is legalised in this country, we WILL come to the place where people ARE under pressure to agree to the ending of their lives. To my knowledge the situation in The Netherlands isn't as secure as advocates of euthanasia/mercy-killing would like us to believe - the legal safeguards aren't as watertight as they should be, and there have been cases where there has been a very strong suspicion that living wills have been drawn up and signed under a significant degree of duress.

It's not actually about religion - mine, or anyone else's. It's about the ethical basis for the practice of medicine laid down by Hippocrates in the 5th century BC. The ethics of the Hippocratic Oath are laid on a foundation of respect for human life and the doctor's responsibility, first and before all else, to do no harm.

IMO these ethical standards have been seriously eroded in the past 50 years; the acceptance of mercy-killing as a legitimate function of the practice of medicine would destroy them completely.

When a person is very elderly, frail, ill, mentally confused and unsure of his or her surroundings or of who the people are who are speaking to him or her, it's very easy to abuse and manipulate them and deprive them of a basic human right like the right not to be killed.

I deal with many people in that state. I can assure you that I've encountered too many situations where the patient's primary fear is that family members, or the doctor at the behest of family members, will decide to shorten his or her life.

There's nothing in the world like the prospect of a legacy for bringing out the absolute worst in human nature. :rolleyes:

I agree with most of what you are saying, however the problem is that many people want to have this right and not having it will cause them and there familys great suffering. So by potentially protecting some people you are willingly subjecting lots of other people to a slow painful death.

Surely we are capable of finding a way to achieve a middle ground rather than one extreme or the other?

[lapsedhibee]

I also have concerns when I come across an older person who wants nothing more than to "be gathered" and is incapable of doing it.


Telling phrase I have heard oldies use is the wish to "get away easily".

Not sure why the Hippocratic Oath - the full version of which includes promises by doctors to provide for other doctors' dependents etc (in other words there's more to it than just promising to do the best for patients) - should override an old person's wish to get away easily.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Telling phrase I have heard oldies use is the wish to "get away easily".

Not sure why the Hippocratic Oath - the full version of which includes promises by doctors to provide for other doctors' dependents etc (in other words there's more to it than just promising to do the best for patients) - should override an old person's wish to get away easily.

I'm totally on the fence on this one. I think doctors are bound to "do no harm". The argument is whether prolonging life unnecessarily can be construed as doing harm. Of course it is one thing to ask a doctor to withdraw treatment, it's another to ask them to do the act that ends life.

I think I mentioned earlier that a lot of people who say they want to die don't actually want to die. I wonder if there is mileage in making life more tolerable.

I honestly don't know, I suppose that people should be permitted to make choices, even if they don't appear to be right.

[--------]

Very good points, I have to say my concern is that pressure will be brought to bear on older people. At the same time I also have concerns when I come across an older person who wants nothing more than to "be gathered" and is incapable of doing it.

It's a very complex issue.


I agree with most of what you are saying, however the problem is that many people want to have this right and not having it will cause them and there familys great suffering. So by potentially protecting some people you are willingly subjecting lots of other people to a slow painful death.

Surely we are capable of finding a way to achieve a middle ground rather than one extreme or the other?


Telling phrase I have heard oldies use is the wish to "get away easily".

Not sure why the Hippocratic Oath - the full version of which includes promises by doctors to provide for other doctors' dependents etc (in other words there's more to it than just promising to do the best for patients) - should override an old person's wish to get away easily.


The Hippocratic Oath is, or was, the basis upon which all medical ethics were based until the 20th century. Before Hippocrates doctors were notorious for being open to offers to get rid of patients at the behest of their heirs and in-laws. Hippocrates trained young doctors, and made them take the oath so that patients could have more confidence in his trainees than in other practitioners. the basic underlying principle is that the doctor is there to benefit his or her patient, not to set up an auction - "Do I heal him, kill him, or just leave him in excruciating pain? Enter your bids now..." - among the patients family and associates for the maximum fee.

The original oath was sworn in the names of Apollo and Aesculepius - not very meaningful nowadays. My point was that the ethical underpinning of the Hippocratic Oath was very clear - the doctor gave his binding promise to seek the good of the patient, and only the good of the patient, and above all to do the patient no harm, whatever pressure might be brought to bear on him to do so.

Doctors are no more or less moral than the rest of us - the problem is that doctors know how to kill people without getting caught - see Dr Shipman. Doctors also can get caught up with the idea that research for the sake of future generations should override the interests of their patients of the present moment. Meg Henderson, in 'Finding Peggy' wrote of her time working in the Southern General and of a surgeon who used a homeless man suffering from hypothermia as a research subject, walking away and letting him die when all the information necessary to him had been collected. Maybe the man would have died anyway, maybe not, but he wasn't given a full chance because his doctor saw him as research-fodder rather than a patient with all the rights a patient should have.

Doctors do ease patients' passing already - there comes a point in most patients' time when it becomes clear that there can be no recovery, and that death is irrevocably on the way and isn't stopping for anyone. At that point a good doctor will stop trying to cure the patient, and concentrate on keeping pain away, and giving the patient as good a quality pf life as is possible within the constraints of his or her illness. I have no problem with this - this, after all is what hospices do for all their patients, and they do it very well. Macmillan nurses, too. I hope when my time comes they'll do it for me.

And I make no criticism of any doctor who, when confronted with a terminally-ill patient in great pain and distress, increases the patient's morphine dosage to deal with the pain and distress, even at the cost of hastening the patient's death. There but for the grace of God - I wouldn't want to be confronted with that decision myself.

My objections to what advocates of euthanasia/mercy-killing are saying are that first, they aren't clear about exactly what safeguards they would want in place to protect those who DON'T want to go just yet - a frail, elderly and somewhat confused patient is in an extremely vulnerable position, and should be protected with all the force of the law. That patient's life is as valuable and as sacrosanct as any other human being's life - I'm not sure that all the advocates of euthanasia would agree with me on this.

Second, I don't trust all doctors. Shipman and Mengele may be on the extreme edge of medical malpractice, but anyone who tells me that some doctors wouldn't hurry a patient along for a financial thank-you from the heirs isn't living in the real world. They've done it in the past, and they'll do it again, all the more readily if the law is changed in the way pro-euthanasia people want it changed.

Third - I've attended at least a couple of dozen death-beds. If I reported some of the things I've heard said by family members (who all expected to inherit, btw) at death-beds, you wouldn't believe me. Hearing is the last sense to leave us as we die - what some of those poor souls must have felt hearing what their nearest and dearest were discussing doesn't bear thinking off. There's nothing like the prospect of a legacy for bringing out the worst in some people.

I pass no judgement on anyone who comes to the place where he or she decides to end his or her life. It's a dark, dark place to find oneself, and no one has the right to judge anyone in that situation, whether they decide to end it, or to go on.

I'm also aware that there are extreme medical situations where switching off the life-support may be best for the patient. We can do so much more than in the past - sometimes it seems that medical advances have placed doctors in the position where they have to make moral and ethical decisions that were unthought-of even 25 years ago. Families and loved ones now look for miracles as a matter of course, I think.

What's best for the patient's family, however, is always, I believe, of secondary importance, and should never be the primary reason for the doctor deciding to end the patients' life. Families can have their own agendas, after all.

There's a wee rhyme - I don't know where it comes from, but it seems to me to sum things up fairly well. "Thou shalt not kill, but need not strive /officiously to keep alive...."

In other words, we should do all we can to heal the patient, listening carefully to the patient's concerns and wishes, and concerning ourselves only with the patient's welfare and well-being. If the patient expresses a desire for death, we need to be aware that that desire itself may well be the product of illness - depression brought on by pain and increasing debility and disability. Dealing with the pain, and addressing the question of weakness and disability honestly and positively (as Macmillan nurses and the hospices do) can help a patient in that situation enormously. I can think of a number of cancer patients who were suicidal until they reached a hospice - the hospice was able to address their difficulties in a way that no hospital or family member could. The degenerative diseases like MS, Parkinson's, Hodgkins' etc are a different matter, however; that may be one limited area where a living will, properly drawn up and attested while the sufferer could speak clearly for himself/herself without any suspicion of pressure or manipulation by third parties, might just be permissible.

As death approaches, the doctor should be aware that his/her responsibility will change, from healing the patient to assuring the patient of a painless and relatively decent exit from this world. If the patient has signed a form stating 'do not resuscitate' in certain circumstances, that must be respected.

BUT - the legal acceptance of 'living wills', or the legalisation of assisted suicide giving legal immunity to the assistants, are in my view a couple of steps too far towards the point where certain people - the elderly infirm, the mentally ill, and the terminally ill - are seen as disposable inconveniences deprived of the same human rights as the young, the fit, the rich....

[Sorry about the length of this - once I started it just seemed as if I couldn't get finished.]

[Sir David Gray]

I normally answer back quite quick, normally because rightly or wrongly I know my own mind. However this is a serious issue and far outweighs student fees or anything else in the news right now so I have taken a bit more time.

I cannot give your religious argument any consideration, simply because in my mind religion should play no part in the running of the country. Religion, for me is up there with santa claus (sorry kiddies) it's just lies, So to base our countries laws on it would just be ridiculous. The only benefit I see of religion is it gives some people comfort, but that's not a reason to base our laws on it.

However, as I said in my original post, the second point, would a section of society feel a pressure to agree to assisted suicide if it became legal is a very real concern and I cannot disagree with your concerns. However, I would urge margo to make clearer how she proposes this should be dealt with so that we can make an informed decision. I don't feel, and partly because margo has no party behind her, that any case was made in this regard.

I have a question for you though, could you ever envisage a scenario where if the right things where put in place you could accept this, or do you just not believe that we could ever be trusted to manage such a law?

I don't believe that I could ever accept the introduction of such a law into Scotland/UK, not just because I believe we couldn't be trusted to manage the law (although that's certainly part of the reason) but also because I just can't see myself ever accepting a situation where it was legally permitted to provide a lethal drug that would deliberately end the life of another human being.

As I said in my last post, it's practically impossible to prevent someone from killing themselves, if they are determined enough, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to end another human's life. That is something that we do have control over and I believe that anyone who is involved in ending someone's life, no matter how good their intentions may be, should be prosecuted.

However, what I will say is that I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and I will never change my mind. If I ever have someone in my family who is in the final stages of cancer and they are in unbearable pain, I honestly don't know how I would feel. Perhaps I would want to see their pain ended prematurely by giving them the drug that they provide in Switzerland at the moment, but until I'm actually in that situation, I can only give you my sincere beliefs at the moment.

It's exactly the same with the death penalty. At the moment, I am completely against it on the grounds that some innocent people could potentially be executed and also that I don't believe anyone has the right to take a life, whether it be a murder on the street or the state executing that murderer. However, if (God forbid) someone in my family was brutally murdered, I really don't know how I would react and perhaps I would want the person responsible to receive the ultimate punishment.

[lapsedhibee]

The Hippocratic Oath is, or was, the basis upon which all medical ethics were based until the 20th century. Before Hippocrates doctors were notorious for being open to offers to get rid of patients at the behest of their heirs and in-laws. Hippocrates trained young doctors, and made them take the oath so that patients could have more confidence in his trainees than in other practitioners. the basic underlying principle is that the doctor is there to benefit his or her patient, not to set up an auction - "Do I heal him, kill him, or just leave him in excruciating pain? Enter your bids now..." - among the patients family and associates for the maximum fee.

The original oath was sworn in the names of Apollo and Aesculepius - not very meaningful nowadays. My point was that the ethical underpinning of the Hippocratic Oath was very clear - the doctor gave his binding promise to seek the good of the patient, and only the good of the patient, and above all to do the patient no harm, whatever pressure might be brought to bear on him to do so.

Doctors are no more or less moral than the rest of us - the problem is that doctors know how to kill people without getting caught - see Dr Shipman. Doctors also can get caught up with the idea that research for the sake of future generations should override the interests of their patients of the present moment. Meg Henderson, in 'Finding Peggy' wrote of her time working in the Southern General and of a surgeon who used a homeless man suffering from hypothermia as a research subject, walking away and letting him die when all the information necessary to him had been collected. Maybe the man would have died anyway, maybe not, but he wasn't given a full chance because his doctor saw him as research-fodder rather than a patient with all the rights a patient should have.

Doctors do ease patients' passing already - there comes a point in most patients' time when it becomes clear that there can be no recovery, and that death is irrevocably on the way and isn't stopping for anyone. At that point a good doctor will stop trying to cure the patient, and concentrate on keeping pain away, and giving the patient as good a quality pf life as is possible within the constraints of his or her illness. I have no problem with this - this, after all is what hospices do for all their patients, and they do it very well. Macmillan nurses, too. I hope when my time comes they'll do it for me.

And I make no criticism of any doctor who, when confronted with a terminally-ill patient in great pain and distress, increases the patient's morphine dosage to deal with the pain and distress, even at the cost of hastening the patient's death. There but for the grace of God - I wouldn't want to be confronted with that decision myself.

My objections to what advocates of euthanasia/mercy-killing are saying are that first, they aren't clear about exactly what safeguards they would want in place to protect those who DON'T want to go just yet - a frail, elderly and somewhat confused patient is in an extremely vulnerable position, and should be protected with all the force of the law. That patient's life is as valuable and as sacrosanct as any other human being's life - I'm not sure that all the advocates of euthanasia would agree with me on this.

Second, I don't trust all doctors. Shipman and Mengele may be on the extreme edge of medical malpractice, but anyone who tells me that some doctors wouldn't hurry a patient along for a financial thank-you from the heirs isn't living in the real world. They've done it in the past, and they'll do it again, all the more readily if the law is changed in the way pro-euthanasia people want it changed.

Third - I've attended at least a couple of dozen death-beds. If I reported some of the things I've heard said by family members (who all expected to inherit, btw) at death-beds, you wouldn't believe me. Hearing is the last sense to leave us as we die - what some of those poor souls must have felt hearing what their nearest and dearest were discussing doesn't bear thinking off. There's nothing like the prospect of a legacy for bringing out the worst in some people.

I pass no judgement on anyone who comes to the place where he or she decides to end his or her life. It's a dark, dark place to find oneself, and no one has the right to judge anyone in that situation, whether they decide to end it, or to go on.

I'm also aware that there are extreme medical situations where switching off the life-support may be best for the patient. We can do so much more than in the past - sometimes it seems that medical advances have placed doctors in the position where they have to make moral and ethical decisions that were unthought-of even 25 years ago. Families and loved ones now look for miracles as a matter of course, I think.

What's best for the patient's family, however, is always, I believe, of secondary importance, and should never be the primary reason for the doctor deciding to end the patients' life. Families can have their own agendas, after all.

There's a wee rhyme - I don't know where it comes from, but it seems to me to sum things up fairly well. "Thou shalt not kill, but need not strive /officiously to keep alive...."

In other words, we should do all we can to heal the patient, listening carefully to the patient's concerns and wishes, and concerning ourselves only with the patient's welfare and well-being. If the patient expresses a desire for death, we need to be aware that that desire itself may well be the product of illness - depression brought on by pain and increasing debility and disability. Dealing with the pain, and addressing the question of weakness and disability honestly and positively (as Macmillan nurses and the hospices do) can help a patient in that situation enormously. I can think of a number of cancer patients who were suicidal until they reached a hospice - the hospice was able to address their difficulties in a way that no hospital or family member could. The degenerative diseases like MS, Parkinson's, Hodgkins' etc are a different matter, however; that may be one limited area where a living will, properly drawn up and attested while the sufferer could speak clearly for himself/herself without any suspicion of pressure or manipulation by third parties, might just be permissible.

As death approaches, the doctor should be aware that his/her responsibility will change, from healing the patient to assuring the patient of a painless and relatively decent exit from this world. If the patient has signed a form stating 'do not resuscitate' in certain circumstances, that must be respected.

BUT - the legal acceptance of 'living wills', or the legalisation of assisted suicide giving legal immunity to the assistants, are in my view a couple of steps too far towards the point where certain people - the elderly infirm, the mentally ill, and the terminally ill - are seen as disposable inconveniences deprived of the same human rights as the young, the fit, the rich....

[Sorry about the length of this - once I started it just seemed as if I couldn't get finished.]

Much to agree with in that, but a couple of small points:
(1) Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath follow current practice, rather than dictate it? If the 'original' Oath (no abortion, no upping of morphine dose at end of life, etc) were still the rule, virtually no modern doctor could practise. If it is essentially something which gets rewritten to suit modern mores (which it is), I don't think you can also hold it up as a steadfast weapon against changing social desires.
(2) While agreeing with your general point that the prospect of lucre brings out the worst in people, don't you think that in most cases where you heard relatives squabbling (etc) at deathbeds, the oldies will have had a pretty good general idea of how their offspring/relatives might behave in such circumstances, and so such overhearing, while no doubt distasteful, will not necessarily be the auditory shock you suggest?
(3) I am not clear why you think that living wills in cases of (eg) MS, Parkinson's, 'might just be permissible', but living wills should not be 'legally acceptable'. Have I misunderstood something here, or is there a contradiction?

[Beefster]

I don't believe that I could ever accept the introduction of such a law into Scotland/UK, not just because I believe we couldn't be trusted to manage the law (although that's certainly part of the reason) but also because I just can't see myself ever accepting a situation where it was legally permitted to provide a lethal drug that would deliberately end the life of another human being.

As I said in my last post, it's practically impossible to prevent someone from killing themselves, if they are determined enough, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to end another human's life. That is something that we do have control over and I believe that anyone who is involved in ending someone's life, no matter how good their intentions may be, should be prosecuted.

However, what I will say is that I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and I will never change my mind. If I ever have someone in my family who is in the final stages of cancer and they are in unbearable pain, I honestly don't know how I would feel. Perhaps I would want to see their pain ended prematurely by giving them the drug that they provide in Switzerland at the moment, but until I'm actually in that situation, I can only give you my sincere beliefs at the moment.

It's exactly the same with the death penalty. At the moment, I am completely against it on the grounds that some innocent people could potentially be executed and also that I don't believe anyone has the right to take a life, whether it be a murder on the street or the state executing that murderer. However, if (God forbid) someone in my family was brutally murdered, I really don't know how I would react and perhaps I would want the person responsible to receive the ultimate punishment.

I can understand your reasoning behind your opposition but the fact that you admit that you may change your mind, if you or a loved one was affected, shows that there is merit in changing the law IMHO.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't believe that I could ever accept the introduction of such a law into Scotland/UK, not just because I believe we couldn't be trusted to manage the law (although that's certainly part of the reason) but also because I just can't see myself ever accepting a situation where it was legally permitted to provide a lethal drug that would deliberately end the life of another human being.

As I said in my last post, it's practically impossible to prevent someone from killing themselves, if they are determined enough, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to end another human's life. That is something that we do have control over and I believe that anyone who is involved in ending someone's life, no matter how good their intentions may be, should be prosecuted.

However, what I will say is that I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and I will never change my mind. If I ever have someone in my family who is in the final stages of cancer and they are in unbearable pain, I honestly don't know how I would feel. Perhaps I would want to see their pain ended prematurely by giving them the drug that they provide in Switzerland at the moment, but until I'm actually in that situation, I can only give you my sincere beliefs at the moment.

It's exactly the same with the death penalty. At the moment, I am completely against it on the grounds that some innocent people could potentially be executed and also that I don't believe anyone has the right to take a life, whether it be a murder on the street or the state executing that murderer. However, if (God forbid) someone in my family was brutally murdered, I really don't know how I would react and perhaps I would want the person responsible to receive the ultimate punishment.

Fair do's

[Sir David Gray]

I can understand your reasoning behind your opposition but the fact that you admit that you may change your mind, if you or a loved one was affected, shows that there is merit in changing the law IMHO.

I think if most people, who are currently opposed to euthanasia/assisted suicide, were being honest, they would admit that their feelings may change if a close friend or family member was suffering from a terminal illness and was in unbearable pain.

Even those who are currently pro-euthanasia might change their mind, if they had a family member who had terminal cancer. They might not be so willing to see the life of a human being, being ended, if they were talking about someone who was close to them.

The truth is that no-one really knows for certain how they will react when they are placed in a difficult situation like this.

Although I'm quite willing to admit to that, I still do not believe that I could give my mum, dad or my brother a lethal drug to drink and watch them die or even watch a doctor doing the same.

I just hope to God that I never have to face up to that situation.

[--------]

Much to agree with in that, but a couple of small points:
(1) Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath follow current practice, rather than dictate it? If the 'original' Oath (no abortion, no upping of morphine dose at end of life, etc) were still the rule, virtually no modern doctor could practise. If it is essentially something which gets rewritten to suit modern mores (which it is), I don't think you can also hold it up as a steadfast weapon against changing social desires.
(2) While agreeing with your general point that the prospect of lucre brings out the worst in people, don't you think that in most cases where you heard relatives squabbling (etc) at deathbeds, the oldies will have had a pretty good general idea of how their offspring/relatives might behave in such circumstances, and so such overhearing, while no doubt distasteful, will not necessarily be the auditory shock you suggest?
(3) I am not clear why you think that living wills in cases of (eg) MS, Parkinson's, 'might just be permissible', but living wills should not be 'legally acceptable'. Have I misunderstood something here, or is there a contradiction?



First: the Hippocratic Oath has indeed been amended many times - this is a fact, but one which leaves me very uneasy and somewhat more then distrustful of the intentions and actions of many medical practitioners in the present age. And of many so-called 'moral philosophers', btw.

Second: I'm more than certain that many old people know exactly what their heirs think of them. I treasure fond memories of the old gentleman who caught his nephew taking notes of the hallmarks and pottery marks on the silver and china in his (the old gentleman's) drawing room cabinets. The OG threw the nephew out of the house and changed his will, leaving everything to his blissfully unaware next-door neighbour - a very good, helpful, and caring next-door neighbour, btw.

When the will was read in the nephew's presence, the last clause left him a legacy of £10 - a "token", according to the OG, of "the esteem and affection in which I hold him". The solicitor nearly burst trying to keep a straight face... the neighbour actually passed out with the shock - he had had no idea at all.

The reason I mentioned it is that this is the sort of thing about human nature that makes me VERY opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia. "Euthanasia", btw, is such a "nice" word for what in certain cases will really amount to "killing weak, helpless and disabled people", I sometimes think. Humanity has a huge capacity for selfishness and downright badness, and the law is needed, to curb that badness effectively. Much of the 'mercy'-killing argument is based on the idea that human beings are basically decent. That seems to me to amount to wilful self-delusion at times. Let's call it 'ending life' - that's reasonably non-emotive, and at least it's honest.

Third: about living wills; this reflects the fact that I'm not fully decided about this myself. I'd say that the degenerative diseases, and the sort of situation where the patient is in a coma or a vegetative state where there's little or no hope of recovery cause much more mental anguish and fear than illnesses like cancer.

(I know, I'm quantifying and comparing human suffering, which isn't really on, but bear with me?)

I have huge sympathy for someone who is diagnosed as suffering from, say, Parkinson's Disease, who knows the details of their prognosis, and rationally and responsibility makes the decision in a living will to specify at what point they wish to cease living. Provided this is their decision, and theirs alone, and provided no pressure or influence has been used by interested parties to bring them to that decision, then I can't judge them, nor should I or anyone else.

The problem is that before death ensues, these illnesses by definition rob us of much of our capacity to communicate with the people around us. So if the patient has changed his or her mind, but is unable to communicate that change of mind, and is unable to revoke his/her living will? And a patient in a coma or vegetative state can't communicate...

That's my dilemma. I have to say I really don't know what my position is. The law is a horridly blunt and unwieldy weapon to use in an area like this, where vulnerable and suffering people must be protected, and where what exactly that protection entails is open to such debate. The one person I REALLY don't trust is the person who thinks they can sort out everything by a quick change of the law.

[Pretty Boy]

I thought long and hard about making another contibution to this thread and decided it was probably worth it.

I'm not sure if anyone watched a documentary last year following the workings of an intensive care unit in an English hospital. This brilliant show captured the very real emotions that people face when faced with the decision of whether or not to withdraw treatment/turn off life support equipment. One case that i remember was a man who had been left severely injured after a motorcycle accident. He was completely paralysed from below the neck, was unable to speak and showed no outwards signs of life. After long consultation with the family lasting several days a decision was made to switch off the equipment that was keeping him alive and allow him to die. His family went to his bedside to say thir final goodbyes and the Doctors began final checks before withdrawing support. It was during the last of these checks that a top neurologist noticed a flicker of movement in the patients eye. This changed the situation entirely and the family were informed that the situation had changed. Over the course of several months the neurologists, communication therapists, Doctors and so on managed to establish a line of communcation in which a movement of the eyes to the left meant yes and to the right meant no. They finally were satisfied that he understood enough to be asked whether he wished to have treatment withdrawn or whether he wished to continue to live in his current situation. He chose to live.

I guess the point i am trying to make is that Doctors, certainly in that situation, do not make the decision to withdraw treatment or to allow someone to die lightly. Make no mistake that man has 0% chance of recovery, his spinal cord was beyond repair, he will never talk again, never walk again, indeed he will never breathe for himself again. Was it not for the machines that do absolutely everything for him he would be dead, he is alive to all intents and purposes artificially and had nature been allowed to take it's course he would be dead. The fact is the Doctors did not allow this to happen, of all his family members a few expressed the view that he should be allowed to die but the Doctors were not happy with this and spent several months working hard to ensure a patient had the final choice. As far as i am aware that gentleman is still in the same hospital living in the same way.

I honestly am not sure how a right to die law would work. I am certainly not someone who belives it is a quick fix. There has to be thorough checks, watertight guidelines and the final decision must ultimately be that of the individual who wishes to have their life ended. I have no idea how such a law would work or how it would be governed. A sudden quick change of law is not the solution here although i'm not convinced that long term there isn't a viable solution to allow someone to die with, what they believe to be, dignity at a time of their choosing.

[RyeSloan]

Some excellent posts on this thread. :agree:

To me it comes down to individuals rights. I agree 100% that the 'right to die' should never be decided by relatives and that there is an obvious risk that any new law would open vulnerable people to coercion. However I think there is a very strong argument that currently if there was a situation where "a living will, properly drawn up and attested while the sufferer could speak clearly for himself/herself without any suspicion of pressure or manipulation by third parties" exists that the law as it stands unfairly prevents these people from making these choices.

There is no simple answer to a very complex issue but that does not mean we shouldn't continue to debate and IMHO continue to look at ways of allowing people to choose.

[--------]

Some excellent posts on this thread. :agree:

To me it comes down to individuals rights. I agree 100% that the 'right to die' should never be decided by relatives and that there is an obvious risk that any new law would open vulnerable people to coercion. However I think there is a very strong argument that currently if there was a situation where "a living will, properly drawn up and attested while the sufferer could speak clearly for himself/herself without any suspicion of pressure or manipulation by third parties" exists that the law as it stands unfairly prevents these people from making these choices.

There is no simple answer to a very complex issue but that does not mean we shouldn't continue to debate and IMHO continue to look at ways of allowing people to choose.


Like Pretty Boy, I don't know how a 'good' law could be framed that would work properly to protect everyone and their rights.

I know that most of the time my own motives for doing THIS rather than THAT can be very mixed. I can find myself doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons, so in the end I guess I'll work on my own kinks and wrinkles rather than judging other people.

I've had to sit with people who've just had the worst news possible given to them by their doctors, and there's no way that I would tell them how they should deal with it, or what they should do in response to it.

All I can say is that I've known a few people who have seriously considered suicide, and then thought differently, and are now glad they did, to be wary of making any judgements here.

There but for the grace of God....

[lapsedhibee]

I treasure fond memories of the old gentleman who caught his nephew taking notes of the hallmarks and pottery marks on the silver and china in his (the old gentleman's) drawing room cabinets. The OG threw the nephew out of the house and changed his will, leaving everything to his blissfully unaware next-door neighbour - a very good, helpful, and caring next-door neighbour, btw.

When the will was read in the nephew's presence, the last clause left him a legacy of £10 - a "token", according to the OG, of "the esteem and affection in which I hold him". The solicitor nearly burst trying to keep a straight face... the neighbour actually passed out with the shock - he had had no idea at all.

:thumbsup: A life-affirming tale. :agree:


It was during the last of these checks that a top neurologist noticed a flicker of movement in the patients eye. This changed the situation entirely and the family were informed that the situation had changed. Over the course of several months the neurologists, communication therapists, Doctors and so on managed to establish a line of communcation in which a movement of the eyes to the left meant yes and to the right meant no. They finally were satisfied that he understood enough to be asked whether he wished to have treatment withdrawn or whether he wished to continue to live in his current situation. He chose to live. Make no mistake that man has 0% chance of recovery, his spinal cord was beyond repair, he will never talk again, never walk again, indeed he will never breathe for himself again.

A difficult choice, and a 'wrong' decision, non? :dunno:

[Pretty Boy]

:thumbsup: A life-affirming tale. :agree:


A difficult choice, and a 'wrong' decision, non? :dunno:

I'm not sure i can answer that question honestly. Right now i would say i wouldn't like to live in that way but i suppose put in the position where it was a choice between living like that and dying i may well answer differently. Probably the single hardest choice anyone would ever had to make.

Can i just add that at the risk of sounding patronising i've found this thread a breath of fresh air on the board at the moment. Despite this being an emotive issue pretty much all the contributors to the thread have been honest, respectful and sensible in their arguments. There hasn't been any hidden agendas, arguments for the sake of arguing etc. I wouldn't describe the topic enjoyable but i've certainly enjoyed reading a sensible and open debate. Long may it continue.

[--------]

:thumbsup: A life-affirming tale. :agree:


I liked it. I was one of the witnesses to Willie's signature on the will. We had to do the whole legal rigmarole - asking him where he was, what date it was, did he know who we were, what was the nature of the document he was signing? All to establish his legal competence.

Afterwards I was pestered by a series of Weegie solicitors trying to prove Willie had been out of his mind. I took great pleasure in assuring each and every one of them that Willie had been more than sharp enough to skin the lot of them in court, and I'd be happy to testify to that effect.

Sometimes my job can be fun.

I'd have liked to have seen some doctor trying to euthanise Willie against his will...

It's have been the sawbones I'd have been burying. :devil: