If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
This.
The argument isn't about self determination, it's about the right for someone to kill you (if you wish them to).
But it isn't murder, as it's with the person's consent and so it's assisted suicide. I don't see much difference physically between turning off a life support machine and using a syringe to administer a lethal dose. Both are done with the understanding and intention that it will end a life.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/19/newsid_2520000/2520581.stm
On my phone now so will add a more detailed response later if I remember
At this very moment, killing another human being deliberately is murder. You might be right, might be quite easy to find a doctor willing to kill people, but I'd question the mind of a doctor who would actually kill people although I hope it isn't quite as easy as it sounds.
You've also got the morality thing to consider. Whilst there will be doctors who don't believe in God, it will still be difficult to shake that niggling feeling that once you've "euthanised" the patient you'll be damning your soul to an eternity in hell..........
Very tragic, also very different. He was left to die, the doctor's simply stopped treating him, I have a close friend who is going through something similar.
It's still not the same thing as the doctor's killing you.
I personally wouldn't have any such niggle. And I can't be the only person who wouldn't.
Currently - if you've got the motor skills to do it yourself, then you can chose to end your life in a reasonably dignified and pain free faishon. If you don't - then anyone who helps you carry out your wish is potentially implicit in your murder.
I'm not sure how calling it murder really helps the discussion - as to me part of the discussion is really should helping someone achieve their aim to end their life really be classed as murder?
Yes, there's another issue of would any doctor be willing to do it but at the moment we don't give them, or carers, or family members that choice.
I was about to call it disability discrimination but I don't think it is.
It almost is though. For other aspects of living with a disability society is legally required to make allowances i.e. working dogs allowed inside restaurants, ramps for wheelchairs, t-loops for the hard of hearing etc.
It's only on this that there are no allowances made for those that can't act themselves to do what they want to do.
The difference being that those are allowances for things that people could legally and reasonably be expected to want to do in day-to-day life. To reduce the argument to the somewhat absurd, but still highlighting the point: if you had no arms you couldn't poke yourself in the eye. Is it reasonable to expect society (or another person) to make the provision for someone else to poke you in the eye if such is your want?
But both acts would presumably be illegal in the eyes of the law? If I asked you poke me in the eye, even though I had the ability to poke myself in the eye, it would still be illegal for you to do so - if it were illegal to poke people in the eye in general.
I don't honestly know what my thoughts are; I studied medical ethics last year but all that did was convince me that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and I think he conveys that really well. It's also fascinating to hear him discuss how the process is affected by progressive illnesses such as Motor Neurone Disease and Alzheimer's, because the sufferer wants to live as much life as possible but can't afford to wait until they're too ill to be declared competent.
Whatever you think, you should watch this.
Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die
Now you're discriminating against people who can poke themselves in the eye but want someone else to do it.
I'm not sure how much I but into my own analogy, to be honest.
just watched it. a really respectful and well made doc. thanks for sharing
He does, pretty effectively.
There isn't a single answer for everyone and it's why I sit on the fence to an extent - although I currently look at the sanctity of life side rather than euthanasia. As a society we spend much effort and funding in trying to extend lives, life expectancy is increasing and we see outrage when cancer drugs aren't automatically available (even though there's often no evidence of their effectiveness)... Yet here we are talking about killing someone.
It isn't suicide so let's not pretend it is. "Assisted Suicide" is just a nice way of saying "Killing Someone". It's legalised manslaughter.
There will be doctors who will be willing, I'm sure. They already remove treatment or increase morphine doses as palliative measures. I am very confident though that we will see a reduction in funding for palliative care drugs, homes, hospices etc.
Part of me wonders if that wouldn't be a good thing... My mum was dying for a long time, not sick, dying. Maybe it would have been better for her if it had been shorter under a new system... Just a bit of a negative brain fart thought, but I do wonder what she would have thought.
I find it difficult to get my head around because assisted suicide in the *formalised* sense as seen in the Terry Pratchett documentary definitely requires assistance in some way. The staff from Dignitas could be argued to take an important role by mixing the poison in the first place and handing it to the guy wishing to die.
Sure, he took the final step by drinking it but again couldn't it be understood that in providing the poison and mixing it then handing it to him she was to a great degree assisting him? Also by implication, the people in the room present knew what he was doing and so by not taking measures to prevent it from happening are also implicated?
I guess that's why I wanted to ask and to differintiate between the two and ask are they really so different?
Yes - I think Tony should be allowed to die.
-He wants to - he can consent
-Just because he is disabled - this shouldn't stop him
-Morally - if he is going to starve himself anyway, isn't it the lesser of two evils to make it less painful?
However, do I think a law should be passed to allow him and others help to do it? Not necessarily, and this is where I find it really tricky... I am probably completely on the fence, I wish there was a third (middle) option but there's not.
It's both.
Euthanasia, by definition, means that society accepts that *some* lives are "not worth" fighting for, or living. No matter what the reasons behind it, that's a pretty troubling step. I have no doubt that, with this acceptance, pressure would be put on those not wishing to end their own lives to do so. The "you're being selfish" argument.
Expecting someone else to do the deed for you actually is selfish (to an extent), although I understand the reasons why this may be the only option. I actually, honestly, believe that people in Pratchett's position shouldn't wait until they are incapabale themselves. If they don't want to live to the 'natural' end then they should do it themselves while they still can.
They are accepting that it's okay to kill someone, in certain circumstances. Those circumstances being disability, terminal illness etc. There are very few circumstances where someone is completely incapable of killing themselves just like everyone else.
Like I said, where it is predictable - i.e. degenerative disease, then why not take your life whilst you still can? Why wait? You know what's coming...
I'm not against the whole thing per se, I'm against a doctor adminstering a poison to another person. Why can't his family do it? If they're so keen for someone to legally be allowed to kill him, then why bring a 3rd party into it?
In the instance of Tony Nicklinson I listened to one of his daughters and his wife be interviewed on R4 and his wife said that she thought she would be able to kill him. But what if the person wanting to die doesn't have any adult family?
It wasn't actually a doctor, it was a lady from Dignitas. Terry Pratchett actually commended her for the compassion and support she showed. It's obviously her job but I think it'd be really disturbing if she was desensitised to the entire thing.
It's personal choice. My mum/brother/cat might want to be there for the moment I slip away but they might not actually be too keen to measure out the drug or administer an injection. Would really reccomend that documentary, if you can watch the last part in which you actually see a man take the dose. It's hard to watch but really, really peaceful.