Mercy killing & end of life choices

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
20,396
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Because if such matters were just "let go" there would soon be a reaction in the opposite direction.

I believe that the right to kill yourself stands alongside the other basic rights but there have to be checks to ensure that it doesn't become a licence for murder. At the moment this is the only such process we have (so far as I can see) and I don't know if our society is yet ready for the changes that would be necessary to improve on it.
 
cambsno said:
Why oh why do we still have to read about cases like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-49743727

What benefit does it do to drag this through courts, causing anguish to families who have suffered enough. Where are the human rights of the patients?
Click to expand...

In this case what she said at one point could certainly have indicated that this may not have been an agreed mercy killing or double suicide. I agree that the whole thing was a mess but with the best will in the world in this case given the circumstances and what was said there surely had to be some sort of investigation if not an actual trial.

On the question of assisted suicides in general I think I'd agree that people in severe pain or extreme loss of dignity with no hope of recovery should be allowed a dignified and painless alternative but we'd need to guard against even any hint of people being pressured into a decision by unscrupulous others.
 
I agree with the above.

One thing that interests me when this subject is debated on the media is why people are not asked their religious affiliations. When politics is debated, the political affiliations are always pointed out* but on this subject I suspect a large number of the "anti" group have religious motivations but that is never questioned.


*only to day there was a father who confronted pfeffel johnson over the lack of cover for his seriously ill son and the media were at pains to point out that the father was a "Labour activist" as if that is what made his son ill and limited the number of available doctors
 
sirch said:
I agree with the above.

One thing that interests me when this subject is debated on the media is why people are not asked their religious affiliations. When politics is debated, the political affiliations are always pointed out* but on this subject I suspect a large number of the "anti" group have religious motivations but that is never questioned.


*only to day there was a father who confronted pfeffel johnson over the lack of cover for his seriously ill son and the media were at pains to point out that the father was a "Labour activist" as if that is what made his son ill and limited the number of available doctors
Click to expand...

But it could have had something to do with him confronting BJ in the way he did and whilst we're on the subject of activists I wonder where this guy was when a Labour govt was running the largest public sector deficit of any developed country, a situation which wasn't sustainable and had to lead to some degree of austerity. I say this as a life long socialist and Labour supporter, until recent times. Maybe he isn't old enough to remember reckless borrowing or further back the involvement of the IMF.

Sadly I don't think we can assume pure motives to everyone all the time and whilst this is taking this thread off topic on a similar line I was annoyed at the Lib Dems saying they'd stop the NHS being used as a political football in their Party political broadcast as surely saying this in a PPB is exactly using the NHS as a political football.
 
Last edited:
I 100% believe that there should be options in place to facilitate the choice to end one's life with dignity should the circumstances meet a prescribed criteria.
Canada, the Netherlands and others have "schemes" in place and I don't recall hearing that it's lead to an increase in suspicious deaths.
 
I'll never understand why anyone should be forced to live on when they are obviously in serious pain or
have no dignity left
We don't let our pets carry on in that state why should it be illegal to help a loved one end the suffering ?
I have already made my wishes known to my kids and will have a living will to cover it should it be necessary

Politics has absolutely no place in this discussion, please don't let's turn another thread into a stupid argument over politics
 
Unfortunately politics has to come into this discussion, because without a change in the law(s) killing someone for whatever reason is against the law. Even where euthanasia is allowed there are strict controls and only certain people are allowed to do it.
 
Gremlin said:
I'll never understand why anyone should be forced to live on when they are obviously in serious pain or
have no dignity left
We don't let our pets carry on in that state why should it be illegal to help a loved one end the suffering ?
I have already made my wishes known to my kids and will have a living will to cover it should it be necessary

Politics has absolutely no place in this discussion, please don't let's turn another thread into a stupid argument over politics
Click to expand...

Sadly, your living will can only cover withdrawal of certain care under very specific circumstances, and a DNR order. It still doesn't permit you to decide your fate, which I believe it should.
 
munch said:
Unfortunately politics has to come into this discussion, because without a change in the law(s) killing someone for whatever reason is against the law. Even where euthanasia is allowed there are strict controls and only certain people are allowed to do it.
Click to expand...
Cases for and against can be discussed without involving politics though.
You are correct in that a change in law would be required, and that is political, but it doesn't mean we have to discuss the politics in this thread.
If we do, I'm sure we all know how it will end.
 
sirch said:
I agree with the above.

One thing that interests me when this subject is debated on the media is why people are not asked their religious affiliations. When politics is debated, the political affiliations are always pointed out* but on this subject I suspect a large number of the "anti" group have religious motivations but that is never questioned.


*only to day there was a father who confronted pfeffel johnson over the lack of cover for his seriously ill son and the media were at pains to point out that the father was a "Labour activist" as if that is what made his son ill and limited the number of available doctors
Click to expand...
If religion affects the stance of the anti brigade, that's fine by me.
They dont have to get involved, or participate in assisted euthanasia.
I do not think that gives them the right to try and prevent me from doing it in the future if allowed, and my health situation meant that it was my wish.
 
I think this is a whole avenue that can be very thorny. I think if it's done right, it would be acceptable to most people. The problem is doing it right. Who do you accept should be allowed to die ahead of their time? The sorts of things I'd be concerned about:
  • the young person with severe depression. They might be in their late teens or early twenties. They have such severe depression that no medical treatment works. Do we allow them to die young? Or do we refuse, hoping that there will be a new cure or treatment around the corner?
  • the elderly person who has lost their spouse, has no siblings (or none alive), has no children or family so to speak of. They live alone at home and wake up each day with nothing to live for?
  • the person who is coerced into euthanasia for nefarious reasons. How do you distinguish between someone with a terminal illness who wishes to die vs someone who only says they wish to die (and passes all hoops and barriers)?

Ten years ago, I'd have been against euthanasia but now my stance has changed. I've seen the first two sorts of scenarios - one person I know who just has treatment-resistant depression and wants to end their life but are too afraid to pull the trigger themselves, and the second person was someone who I spoke to in a hospital when I did some volunteer work. The third scenario is the sort of thing that would make me concerned - people being persuaded into suicide for the benefit of others.

If we limit it to people with terminal illnesses, others might cry out "discrimination" - that they can't have euthanasia because they don't have a terminal illness.
 
Clearly the bar should be set high, all the recent cases that I have heard about are people who have a terminal illness but have lost the physical ability to take their own life. I think if you have the ability to take your own life (elderly, depressed, etc.) then assisted suicide would not be available to you and clearly you should receive other help. Also there needs to be a clearly stated and independently witnessed intention that person intended to end their life at some point of progression of the illness and that statement needs to be made when the person is still mentally and physically able.

It seems likely that there would be a need for specialist nurses/councillors operating under a strict code of practice to agree that people who wanted to express such a wish did so freely. This could be done immediately following a terminal diagnosis. The CoP could for example include a requirement to see the person individually (no relatives present) on several occasions.
 
When I look at my Dad I see someone completely robbed of life by illness. I struggle to see part of his life not affected. His world has shrunk to his bedroom & the living room. It takes careers to move him between them and help him to the loo. It’s destroyed his relationship with my mum. My daughter can’t remember the man he was and TBH I struggle. If that is the future it petrifies me. I’m all for voluntary euthanasia.both for him & me if it comes to it.

But I do question my motivation for that. Do I support this cause I think it’s the best for him (or me if it comes to it) or to preserve his memory? I’m genuinely not sure
 
I know that Mum and Dad would have both taken a tablet (euphemism) to end their lives had it been available (and in Mum's case, had she been able to do so after a sub arachnoid haemorrhage.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top