Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
Fair point. If I knew my quality of life would be acceptable past the point where I'd be able to commit suicide unaided then the law as it currently stands might cause me to take my own life while I still could.
Which takes me back to my earlier point. This is about society accepting that some conditions needn't be lived with, rather than valuing the sanctity of *all* lives. It's the "burden" argument.
My point with not waiting until incapable, is that you then don't need to rely on anyone else, it means you take responsibility for your own choices and there isn't any need for a law change. If you really, really, don't want to wait for the degenerative condition to leave you incapable then don't. But also, don't expect someone else to have to kill you, just because *you* want to live longer. That is the selfish act IMHO
I disagree (still) and agree with Fiend that it seems to be more about accepting people's choice to die rather than judging a life not worth living.
And your last point brings us back to the case of Tony. He doesn't hasn't got a degenerative condition as I understand. The stroke left him in that state immediately. Where does that leave him?
So, would you accept euthanasia in *any* circumstances then? By that I mean the right to ask someone to kill you, even if you were capable yourself?
I did say that there were exceptions to the rule, but in most cases we are talking about degenerative disease aren't we?
Personally I would prefer to see investment in supporting people to live, not encouraging them to feel like death is the only real option that they have.
Yes. Everyone should have the right to ask that of someone, just as that person has the right to turn them down.
I wasn't aware that those things were mutually exclusive? I'm sure if someone requested euthanasia, they would have to go through a series of assessments to make sure they were of sound mind before it was even considered an option, and that during that process they would be encouraged to live. And I don't think allowing euthanasia would be encouraging that at all. I think it would be accepting that, no matter how hard you try, sometimes people just want to die.
Maybe work has made me cynical, but you clearly have more faith than I do.
Funding for palliative care will drop, meaning that economies of scale no longer apply and respite care/hospice care will be even scarcer than it is today. Pharma companies will reduce investment in palliative care and meds for long term conditions, meaning that fewer will be available and that will have a negative effect on people's long term conditions.
At the same time there will be greater investment in euthanasia services.
I think it's obvious what happens next...
As the NHS further "rations" services guess which will gain priority? Keep people alive costs much, much more than killing them... Dementia alone is the biggest financial risk for the next ten years as the number of over 65s increases by over 50%, the second biggest risk comes from smoking and subsequent lung diseases. We are already seeing the Govt reducing funding for care homes and suggesting the people insure themselves against living longer and needing nursing care... I leave the conclusion of this up to you.
Like I say though, maybe I'm just getting cynical.
I read that Ludwig Minelli the guy behind Dignitas is fighting the prohibitation that they cannot help profoundly depressed people to die.
Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/18/assisted-suicide-dignitas-house
So I guess it comes down to physical health vs mental health. Are they distinct? Should as Minelli says a 'profoundly depressed person' also be helped to die?
I have no idea where I am in this arguement. Mind. blown :crazyeyes