Euthanasia/right to die - yes or no?

[andyandy]

Terry Practchet is delivering a lecture on the subject tonight:

The author Sir Terry Pratchett is calling for euthanasia tribunals to give sufferers from incurable diseases the right to medical help to end their lives.

Pratchett will insist in his Dimbleby lecture, to be broadcast tonight, that "the time is really coming" for legalising assisted death.

Two polls published today back his views. Of more than 1,000 people interviewed for a BBC Panorama programme, 73% believed friends or relatives should be able to assist the suicide of a terminally ill loved one. A YouGov poll of 2,053 people for the Telegraph produced even stronger support, with 80% saying that relatives should not be prosecuted, and 75% backing a change in the law.

Pratchett, author of the bestselling Discworld fantasy novels, was diagnosed two years ago with a rare form of early onset Alzheimer's disease – a discovery he memorably described, when he broke the news on the Discworld News website, as "an embuggerance".

In his lecture, Shaking Hands With Death, the author will volunteer to be a test case before a euthanasia tribunal himself.

The tribunal panels would include a legal expert in family matters and a doctor with experience of serious long-term illness.

"If granny walks up to the tribunal and bangs her walking stick on the table and says 'Look, I've really had enough, I hate this bloody disease, and I'd like to die thank you very much young man', I don't see why anyone should stand in her way."

He said there was no evidence from countries where assisted dying is allowed of granny being coerced into dying so relatives could get their hands on her money.

"Choice is very important in this matter. But there will be some probably older, probably wiser GPs, who will understand. The tribunal would be acting for the good of society as well as that of the applicant – and ensure they are of sound and informed mind, firm in their purpose, suffering from a life-threatening and incurable disease and not under the influence of a third party.

"If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/01/terry-pratchett-euthanasia-tribunals

I'm absolutely for this - with sufficient safeguards of course.

Perhaps only for people with a terminal/degenerative illness like end stage cancer/altzhimers/motor-nerone etc etc.
with a testement signed whilst still of competent mind within the past year/2 years declaring their wish to die at a given stage of the condition (eg loss of all short term memory etc)
with something signed by 2 different GPs/docs attesting to the patient's condition and state of mind

You could have plenty of safeguards to prevent any slippery slope arguments. The main arguments against it therefore seem to be God Bothery (only god has the right to take life etc) or that patients would feel pressured into it because they didn't want their relatives to suffer. The latter i don't think really is a great argument against - after all people are pretty keen to hang on to life whenever possible regardless of what other people think.

Anyway, just some musings....i could go on, but then i want this thread to be a general discussion, not a disection of my own ideas

discuss....

 

[andyandy]

an associated question is whether there will actually ever be a law passed on assisted suicide. There is pretty widespread support for such a law, but that doesn't count for much....it's not as if politicians are chosen to represent the will of the people or anything....

 

[Thunder]

i only support Phd. assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

it is madness to force a person in horrible pain, to have to suffer till their last miserable heartbeat. if they cannot be cured, they are on death's doorstep, and they cannot be relieved of their horrible pain..let them have the right to choose to go.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm listening to the lecture right now.

I really don't know the answer to this. As a vet, I totally understand the value of being able to spare a patient the last few minutes, hours or days of suffering.

As a vet, I also totally understand the convenience of being able to get rid of an annoying, inconvenient and expensive patient when it seems convenient to do so.

And as a human being, I understand how "certain safeguards" can turn into no safeguards at all.

Rolfe.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, with safeguards,the main one being the patient must choose it themselves ,or, in the case of coma or braindead, have left valid, legal instructions..with the same legal status as a will... that that is there wish if that happens to them.
I am very uneasy about having another person make that decison.

Yeah, we have to be careful. let's face it, the precedent for "Mercy Killing" with Nazi Germany is not a good one.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

I for one advocate suicide to nearly ANYONE who wishes to commit it. With issues like resource management, welfare reform, job security, health insurance rates, crime rates and cost of living, being a serious problem...I say yes.

And when it comes to people who wish to commit suicide, those who've been in and out of institutions and are constantly getting worse and constantly trying to kill themselves, I say let them.

I go with the Doug Stanhope argument:

Suicide is another thing that's so frowned upon in this society, but honestly, life isn't for everybody. It really isn't. It's sad when kids kill themselves 'cause they didn't really give it a chance, but life is like a movie: if you've sat through more than half of it and it sucked every second so far, it probably isn't gonna get great right at the very end for you and make it all worthwhile. No one should blame you for walking out early.

Now thats a sort of calloused inhumane approach to the idea of suicide, but dagnabbit, I think he's right!!!

That and I can't wait to see the replies that come about from such a suggestion.

 

[Thunder]

Yeah, we have to be careful. let's face it, the precedent for "Mercy Killing" with Nazi Germany is not a good one.

correct me if i am wrong, but I don't think the Nazis used euthanasia to simply kill the terminally ill or those in untreatable pain.

the used euthanasia, to kill the "inferior". those that were a financial "burden" upon the German people.

 

[andyandy]

I've just finished watching the lecture now - i'd recommend anyone with iplayer access watching it, it was excellent. Written by Terry Pratchett and delivered by Tony Robinson, a 30 minute presentation about why assisted suicide (or assisted dying as he terms it) should be allowed.

It was pretty moving stuff.

 

[Cainkane1]

i only support Phd. assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

it is madness to force a person in horrible pain, to have to suffer till their last miserable heartbeat. if they cannot be cured, they are on death's doorstep, and they cannot be relieved of their horrible pain..let them have the right to choose to go.

I totally agree.

 

[andyandy]

I'm listening to the lecture right now.

I really don't know the answer to this. As a vet, I totally understand the value of being able to spare a patient the last few minutes, hours or days of suffering.

As a vet, I also totally understand the convenience of being able to get rid of an annoying, inconvenient and expensive patient when it seems convenient to do so.

And as a human being, I understand how "certain safeguards" can turn into no safeguards at all.

Rolfe.

re safeguards, one could make the same argument against organ donation no? It should be illegal because safeguards might turn into no safeguards at all. That the government would start removing kidneys without the proper paperwork, carving up the recently deceased without clearance. That relatives might pressurise a donor to donate to save another family member. And yet, we do have safeguards. And they do work. If any rules are not followed then prosecutions and investigations would be instigated.

Or about removing children from their parents? There are all sorts of safeguards set up there too....

etc. etc. etc.

Why should this be any different to any of the other thousands of safeguards we do accept?

 

[Thunder]

I totally agree.

however, i agree with the status quo, making suicide attempts a crime.

if you are not terminally ill, and u are not in prison for life, and you are not being abused every day, life is not that bad..and u can get help.

 

[andyandy]

however, i agree with the status quo, making suicide attempts a crime.

if you are not terminally ill, and u are not in prison for life, and you are not being abused every day, life is not that bad..and u can get help.

I've never quite understood the need to criminalise individual suicide attempts - it has no deterrent effect and it isn't used to prosecute. What is it for? Anyone attempting and failing suicide should be treated entirely through the health/mental health services, so this would seem like a better avenue to use rather than any legal framework.....

I don't even know if suicide is illegal in the UK any more....maybe you can be forcibly sectioned under the mental health act instead?

 

[Fiona]

I'm listening to the lecture right now.

I really don't know the answer to this. As a vet, I totally understand the value of being able to spare a patient the last few minutes, hours or days of suffering.

As a vet, I also totally understand the convenience of being able to get rid of an annoying, inconvenient and expensive patient when it seems convenient to do so.

And as a human being, I understand how "certain safeguards" can turn into no safeguards at all.

Rolfe.

This.

The only thing I would add is that there is also despair to consider

A while ago my mother was seriously ill. She had necessary surgery and unfortunately she contracted an infection. She was in hospital for 8 months (those who have some experience will know how ill you have to be for that to happen).

My mum is a very brave and stoical woman and she makes few demands on anyone at any time. She is strong and generally pragmatic. There is not trace of the drama queen in her: ever.

About 6 months in she had lost the will to carry on and she told me she just wanted to die. She continued to say this quite seriously. I have no doubt that she meant it. She sincerely believed she would never get better and she wished to end her life.

She did get better and although she was very ill again at the beginning of last year she has again made a full recovery. She has a good quality of life and she has many friends.

I do not know if the existence of a legal route to assisted suicide would have made any difference to the outcome. I do not think it would with "proper safeguards" and I think that if she had truly decided to end her life she could probably have managed that herself: though I am not sure

But it gives me pause on this subject

 

[Thunder]

I've never quite understood the need to criminalise individual suicide attempts

i think it has to be criminalized, in order to force people to get mental care.

 

[shandyjan]

Fiona that is a great point often raised. But the other side to it is if a condition has a prognosis of getting better then it wouldnt qualify. Neither would depression!
I feel for people with no chance of recovery and going down and down each year, with worse things ahead before they die. The end is just unthinkable with some of these diseases.

 

[Fiona]

I know shandyjan; and I had a very different experience with my father's death. That was a tacit arrangement between ourselves and his doctor and though wholly illegal and unspoken I am sure it happens that way a lot.

I am aware that with "adequate safeguards" there should not be a problem: and also that the prognosis for my mum was never hopeless.

I suppose my own two very different experiences leaves me thinking the status quo works ok: but of course both the doctor and the family who reach an unspoken agreement are open to criminal charges: and that is far from satisfactory either.

I am undecided. That is all I can say

 

[bencg]

There is very strong resistance to this from most disabled/differently-abled rights groups. Their line of thinking is (from what I understand) that people who have long term disabilities may be encouraged by society at large and possibly their own carers to think they are a burden and have a low quality of life therefore their right to life will be diminished. I am probably paraprasing the argument wrongly but anyway I come across this argument a fair bit.

I think there must be some way of designing safeguards to guard against abuse but I am not totally confident it would be done right.

Suicide being a crime is pretty stupid anyway, I'm not sure how that helps with sectioning people so it seems to be an old fashoined type of law to me (UK law).

 

[Fiona]

It is not illegal in the UK. It was at one time but it has not been illegal for many years

ETA: the law was changed in 1961

 

[bencg]

It is not illegal in the UK. It was at one time but it has not been illegal for many years

hmm, shows what I know. Thanks for the correction.

 

[casebro]

The poll questions need to be re-aranged.

I think most people who vote #2, would also vote for #1.

Hey, if somebody else can push the button, why shouldn't the patient be able to push her own button a couple days earlier?