The right to die with dignity

[Guinness]

Given a clear set of parameters…incurable, terminally ill and 6 months to live, and the ruling of a high court judge…people ask for the right to die, painlessly, with dignity at a time of their choosing….

The nuggets in parliament get it wrong! Why am I not surprised?

Arguing against :-

a) The God botherers with their intransient, illogical belief in a mythical all seeing, all powerful entity, argue that it’s a sin despite the fact that their God allows child abuse, war, famine, plague etc..etc… to run rampant
b) The muppets that claim that some people may kill off their parents for the money, conveniently forgetting that the Mental Capacity Act makes provision to prevent this
c) Doom mongers who claim it’s the thin end of the wedge and before long we will be killing off anyone over 60

Arguing for :-

a) People in excruciating pain
b) People who do not want to face the excruciating pain that is about to befall them
c) People who want their loved ones to remember them the way they are now and not as a shadow of their former self

Those who argue against have zero experience of a loved one begging and praying to this alleged ‘benign’ entity to take them because they’ve had enough, to watch them soil themselves and shamedly apologise for it…to watch them drift in and out of consciousness, pain then no pain….

It’s ok though if you have a few quid, you can sod off to Switzerland….the peasants have to commit suicide, get your loved one to buy some pills, you’re ok because it’s not illegal to commit suicide but your loved one faces jail because it’s illegal to help someone to do it???

Personally I don’t know what I would do, but I’m damn sure I would like the choice

[cashman]

I was always thinking for it, but whats puzzling me,is insurance? if i were to choose to top meself cos of deteriorating health, how would me loved ones stand ? cos as far as i know suicide invalidates it? if thats correct then to me its an even bigger dilemma fer the poor sods? seems odd to me this aint been mentioned?

[Eric]

We now have that right.

Supreme Court rules Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide - The Globe and Mail

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by cashman

I was always thinking for it, but whats puzzling me,is insurance? if i were to choose to top meself cos of deteriorating health, how would me loved ones stand ? cos as far as i know suicide invalidates it? if thats correct then to me its an even bigger dilemma fer the poor sods? seems odd to me this aint been mentioned?

I'm 100% certain that some desk jockey would work out the odds and create an appropriate codicil to the policy with associated increase in premium...

[cashman]

Could well be the case Guinness, but why has insurance not been discussed? its all very well us supposing,

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Eric

We now have that right.

Supreme Court rules Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide - The Globe and Mail

Those who are severely and irremediably suffering, whether physically or psychologically, “may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering” by the government’s absolute ban on assisted dying. “A person facing this prospect has two options: she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes. The choice is cruel.”

Hey, MP's from the 'mother of parliaments'..look at how the kids have grown

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Guinness

Given a clear set of parameters…incurable, terminally ill and 6 months to live, and the ruling of a high court judge…people ask for the right to die, painlessly, with dignity at a time of their choosing….

The nuggets in parliament get it wrong! Why am I not surprised?

Arguing against :-

a) The God botherers with their intransient, illogical belief in a mythical all seeing, all powerful entity, argue that it’s a sin despite the fact that their God allows child abuse, war, famine, plague etc..etc… to run rampant
b) The muppets that claim that some people may kill off their parents for the money, conveniently forgetting that the Mental Capacity Act makes provision to prevent this
c) Doom mongers who claim it’s the thin end of the wedge and before long we will be killing off anyone over 60

Arguing for :-

a) People in excruciating pain
b) People who do not want to face the excruciating pain that is about to befall them
c) People who want their loved ones to remember them the way they are now and not as a shadow of their former self

Those who argue against have zero experience of a loved one begging and praying to this alleged ‘benign’ entity to take them because they’ve had enough, to watch them soil themselves and shamedly apologise for it…to watch them drift in and out of consciousness, pain then no pain….

It’s ok though if you have a few quid, you can sod off to Switzerland….the peasants have to commit suicide, get your loved one to buy some pills, you’re ok because it’s not illegal to commit suicide but your loved one faces jail because it’s illegal to help someone to do it???

Personally I don’t know what I would do, but I’m damn sure I would like the choice

You use derogatory terms for those who argue against ending life on compassionate grounds. This has the effect of negating your views somewhat.

I know there are supposed to be safeguards against the rules being corrupted, but do you trust those in authority not to be corrupted.
I worked in women's health for many years and when I first started, termination of a pregnancy was not easy for a woman to access, but when I left the NHS, it was termination on demand.....yes, the supposed safeguards of Two Doctors etcetera was still in place, but this was no barr to women getting termination of pregnancy(and some women were seen more than once).

I have seen people dying, I have seen people given life limiting diagnoses, but still I am not sure that legislation to end life is the way forward.

Shouldn't we be caring for the dying in a better way?
Shouldn't the government support the hospice movement in a better, more structured way?
i would not like the medical profession to be in the situation of euthanising people. It is a very short step to taking the old and infirm out of the population because they are no longer seen to be useful.

Where people have helped someone to die(none medical personnel that is), where there has been strong evidence that this was what the deceased wished, have any of those helpers been prosecuted, jailed or given some kind of criminal record?
I am only asking because I don't know.

Do you really want a Harold Shipman making decisions on who should be dispatched from life?
This is a subject which polarises opinion because it is very emotive.
My stance is not one of inexperience either.....my father died of lung cancer, my mother was given the diagnosis of cancer so 13 years ago.....had she taken the road of assisted dying (fearing that she would be in constant pain)she would not be here now....but she is here, and although the diagnosis changed her life....it was not the end of her life.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Eric

We now have that right.

Supreme Court rules Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide - The Globe and Mail

I can see nothing in the article which allows a doctor to opt out of euthanising people.
This would go against the grain for some doctors who hold firm religios beliefs.
And what happens to the Hippocratic Oath?

[JCB]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

You use derogatory terms for those who argue against ending life on compassionate grounds. This has the effect of negating your views somewhat.

I know there are supposed to be safeguards against the rules being corrupted, but do you trust those in authority not to be corrupted.
I worked in women's health for many years and when I first started, termination of a pregnancy was not easy for a woman to access, but when I left the NHS, it was termination on demand.....yes, the supposed safeguards of Two Doctors etcetera was still in place, but this was no barr to women getting termination of pregnancy(and some women were seen more than once).

I have seen people dying, I have seen people given life limiting diagnoses, but still I am not sure that legislation to end life is the way forward.

Shouldn't we be caring for the dying in a better way?
Shouldn't the government support the hospice movement in a better, more structured way?
i would not like the medical profession to be in the situation of euthanising people. It is a very short step to taking the old and infirm out of the population because they are no longer seen to be useful.

Where people have helped someone to die(none medical personnel that is), where there has been strong evidence that this was what the deceased wished, have any of those helpers been prosecuted, jailed or given some kind of criminal record?
I am only asking because I don't know.

Do you really want a Harold Shipman making decisions on who should be dispatched from life?
This is a subject which polarises opinion because it is very emotive.
My stance is not one of inexperience either.....my father died of lung cancer, my mother was given the diagnosis of cancer so 13 years ago.....had she taken the road of assisted dying (fearing that she would be in constant pain)she would not be here now....but she is here, and although the diagnosis changed her life....it was not the end of her life.

I concur with you wholeheartedly , Margaret .

For ten years I worked in a nursing home and saw many die . I cannot recall any of the doctors , nurses , residents suggesting that there should be some intervention to end the lives of those dying .

Rather the emphasis was on palliative care......something which is improving all the time as medical practice progresses .

The old adage "Hard cases make bad law" needs to be kept in mind .

[Margaret Pilkington]

Thank you JCB....I was waiting for the red stuff to come hurtling in.
It still might.....but I am glad to,find that there is someone else, with life experience who has a balanced view.
You are definitely right when you say that hard cases make bad law.

[Accyexplorer]

I'm on the fence with this one.

On one hand, I can see how prolonging someone's suffering is inhumane if they have the mental capacity to make informed decisions and have given their consent to die.

On the other,I see life as a great gift and "murder could lurk under the cloak of kindness" though I don't think there has been many problems with popping folk off in those countries that already allow assisted suicide.

[Margaret Pilkington]

It has been my experience through my long nursing career that doctors have used the maxim....'thou shalt not kill, but need not strive, officiously to keep alive'.
The Liverpool Care Pathway is based on this...and this has been used to accelerate the death of elderly and infirm, so in a way it has been a form of euthanasia....and in some instances relatives have not been informed or given a say in the process.
This is what makes me hesitant to feel comfortable with assisted dying.

If you think that dying of thirst is a dignified death, an easy death, believe me it is neither.
Removing treatment is one thing, removing care is a signal that we have lost our ethical way.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

You use derogatory terms for those who argue against ending life on compassionate grounds. This has the effect of negating your views somewhat.

Yup, guilty as charged, I have derogatory views on anyone who could possibly align themselves with the Spanish inquisition, the destruction of numerous cultures, nazi sympathising popes, covering up child molesting clergy, holy wars etc..etc.. and then claim that someone who wants the right to die with dignity is an affront to scripture.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I know there are supposed to be safeguards against the rules being corrupted, but do you trust those in authority not to be corrupted.

This isn’t even an argument….there is a LAW to safeguard the rules, break the law suffer the consequences..and believe me the Mental Capacity law is enforced far more stringently than the breaking and entering or burglary law.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I worked in women's health for many years and when I first started, termination of a pregnancy was not easy for a woman to access, but when I left the NHS, it was termination on demand.....yes, the supposed safeguards of Two Doctors etcetera was still in place, but this was no barr to women getting termination of pregnancy(and some women were seen more than once).

This is a separate argument but I’ll bite..would you rather that unwanted pregnancies were left to a back street auntie with a knitting needle and a pint of gin? And there are still safeguards (under LAW) in place regarding terminations

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have seen people dying, I have seen people given life limiting diagnoses, but still I am not sure that legislation to end life is the way forward.

As have I, the legislation in question is about options not enforcement, nobody is suggesting that anyone should be forced to end their life, it should be a option

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Shouldn't we be caring for the dying in a better way?
Shouldn't the government support the hospice movement in a better, more structured way?

Yes, but again it’s about options, those who choose ‘no’ should have the very best that a civilised society can give

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

i would not like the medical profession to be in the situation of euthanising people. It is a very short step to taking the old and infirm out of the population because they are no longer seen to be useful.

Already enshrined in law under the mental capacity act

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Where people have helped someone to die(none medical personnel that is), where there has been strong evidence that this was what the deceased wished, have any of those helpers been prosecuted, jailed or given some kind of criminal record?

Named and shamed in their local newspaper, questioned at the local police station, treated like a criminal, fingerprints, photographs and forensics at a time of deep personal grief

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Do you really want a Harold Shipman making decisions on who should be dispatched from life?

That’s a really silly question and so beneath you, the debate in question had very clear parameters i.e. terminally ill, six months to live and a high court ruling….Shipman was an aberration

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This is a subject which polarises opinion because it is very emotive.

100% agree, even though we disagree on the actual argument

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

My stance is not one of inexperience either.....my father died of lung cancer, my mother was given the diagnosis of cancer so 13 years ago.....had she taken the road of assisted dying (fearing that she would be in constant pain)she would not be here now....but she is here, and although the diagnosis changed her life....it was not the end of her life.

And once again…’choice’……not yours…but your mum and dads

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I can see nothing in the article which allows a doctor to opt out of euthanising people.
This would go against the grain for some doctors who hold firm religios beliefs.
And what happens to the Hippocratic Oath?

The Supreme Court of Canada rules only on matters law ... in this case probably the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The sentence, "This is cruel.", is significant because the Charter does state quite clearly that Canadians shall not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Individual doctors will, of course, still be free to act as their consciences dictate. It's the same with abortion over here. We have no abortion laws, period. Doctors are not obliged to perform them, or to refer a woman to a doctor who will. There are, however, groups who will counsel a patient and refer her to a physician. All the court has done is to assert the right of Canadians to doctor assisted suicide. Significantly, all nine justices were in favour. It's up to each Province to decide how it is going to handle the ruling. Quebec, which tends to be very progressive, is going the following route:

Quebec MDs to get euthanasia guide to prepare for legalized assisted death - Montreal - CBC News

Just a note: Our Supreme Court is not like the American version. The position of Supreme Court Justice is not a political appointment ... except that all Canadian regions are represented.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by cashman

I was always thinking for it, but whats puzzling me,is insurance? if i were to choose to top meself cos of deteriorating health, how would me loved ones stand ?

More to the point - what's to stop the insurance company actively promoting your suicide because it's probably cheaper to give your relatives a lump sum than it is to fund your continued palliative drugs and hospice care?