Euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your inability to deal with argument is tedious. Ippy's post was an ad pop. You have already agreed that

Oh yes I'm a bit fucked off with the current ''will of the people thing'' at the moment. Inability to deal with argument? I'm not having that........

[Nearly Sane]

Oh yes I'm a bit fucked off with the current ''will of the people thing'' at the moment. Inability to deal with argument? I'm not having that........

It's a pity that that is exactly your problem.

[Steve H]

Your inability to deal with argument is tedious. Ippy's post was an ad pop. You have already agreed that

OK, ok! It was a fucking ad pop! (It wasn't, but let's pretend it was.) Can we please get on with discussing the thread topic now?

[Nearly Sane]

OK, ok! It was a fucking ad pop! (It wasn't, but let's pretend it was.) Can we please get on with discussing the thread topic now?

No, because it was and you want to then say it wasn't. This is part of the argument made by ippy on the thread. It's partof the thread topic.

[Gordon]

I agree with you Gordon. You are at liberty to claim your life as your own. In fact it is so your own and not anybody elses the idea of finding someone else to end it for you is IMHO contradictory.

Your life, you end it.

I've no plans to do so any time soon, but your point takes us from my view that, in principle, my life is my own and decisions about it are mine, to the arrangements that might apply should I choose to end it. First there is the basis of establishing that I am mentally competent to decide to end my life and, second, the choice of methods that are available for me to do so, and especially where I would then need to access the means of suicide and/or be dependent on others to carry out whatever means I decided on.

I don't think it is contradictory to ask for assistance to do something that I can reasonably decide I want done but can't do it for myself, in this case perhaps due to illness, but I also need to consider the roles of any others in terms of influence they may have over my initial decision to end my life, in agreeing (or not) that I am competent to decide to end my life and, of course, if I needed the involvement of others to carry it out.

I suspect these arrangements come in cans labelled 'Worms'.   

[Owlswing]

For me anyway, the core question is, to quote the title of a well-known play: who's life is it anyway?

My answer is that it's essentially my life, though others may have a casual interest in it, and provided my mental faculties (such as they are) remain intact then it remains my life: currently, I'm quite keen on preserving it 'as is'.

To anyone who says it isn't my life or tells me that it is 'God's', I say to them that they can go fuck off.

Surely you can be a bit more forceful than "Fuck off"?

[Owlswing]

Probably to some posters surprise I am very cautious on this issue. I can see that in an ideal system with plenty of checks and balances that this sounds like a humane, decent thing - euthanasia that is.

Why then do I feel uneasy? Probably because I don't trust our system of government to do the hard work to enable those checks and balances to be put in place. If they do it, they'll farm it out to some friends who run non-existent ferries or who have stocks of non-existent PPE and let them come up with a system.

There is though more to it than that, I don't feel comfortable with a system that hastens peoples death. I know all the arguments - if they were sane when they declared their wishes, if they are in horrendous pain, if they are suffering from terrible life sapping dementia, then why not, you ask?

And I don't have an answer for you - other than it doesn't feel right to me. I know that's not logical or rational and as a non-religious type I certainly don't hold with it being an offence against God, but I don't like it and it worries me because I can see it being open to abuse due to the laissez faire attitude current governments adopt concerning most issues 

There's something else, however, a gut feeling I can't shake that it is on some very basic level of humanity, wrong.

It makes little sense to me, so I expect it to make even less to any of you. There it is.

Agreed!

[Owlswing]

I understand Trentyoyager's position and there is no easy answer but telling someone they have to suffer pain and degradation because you don't trust others....

Agreed!

[Roses]

So you asked the doctor to break the law - doesn't that make you 'scum'?

He didn't break the law, so there!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no plans to do so any time soon, but your point takes us from my view that, in principle, my life is my own and decisions about it are mine, to the arrangements that might apply should I choose to end it. First there is the basis of establishing that I am mentally competent to decide to end my life and, second, the choice of methods that are available for me to do so, and especially where I would then need to access the means of suicide and/or be dependent on others to carry out whatever means I decided on.

I don't think it is contradictory to ask for assistance to do something that I can reasonably decide I want done but can't do it for myself, in this case perhaps due to illness, but I also need to consider the roles of any others in terms of influence they may have over my initial decision to end my life, in agreeing (or not) that I am competent to decide to end my life and, of course, if I needed the involvement of others to carry it out.

I suspect these arrangements come in cans labelled 'Worms'.

I notice that this post is mainly if not exclusively written from your perspective.

There is no national assisted death service from which can draw a service for granted.

You are asking other people to change, you are wanting the abolition of the hypocratic oath.

The lack of consideration for those expected to do this is an overwhelmingly apparent feature of the pro assisted death movement.

[Steve H]

If they were legalised, there'd be a conscience clause for doctors who regard religious dogma as more important than compassion.
BTW, your new signature indicates that you STILL don't understand the burden of proof.

[Nearly Sane]

I notice that this post is mainly if not exclusively written from your perspective.

There is no national assisted death service from which can draw a service for granted.

You are asking other people to change, you are wanting the abolition of the hypocratic oath.

The lack of consideration for those expected to do this is an overwhelmingly apparent feature of the pro assisted death movement.

Just to note it's the Hippocratic Oath, and it isn't taken by British doctors.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If they were legalised, there'd be a conscience clause for doctors who regard religious dogma as more important than compassion.
BTW, your new signature indicates that you STILL don't understand the burden of proof.

Firstly this is not exclusively a religious issue since there are religious and non religious people on both sides of the argument.

Secondly there is some contention over whether atheism or agnosticism should be the default position.
No change for theists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to note it's the Hippocratic Oath, and it isn't taken by British doctors.

Ah so it’s “ You are British luvvy and you’ll do whatever procedure you’re required to “

As you wish Dr Fingele.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah so it’s “ You are British luvvy and you’ll do whatever procedure you’re required to “

As you wish Dr Fingele.

No.

[Enki]

This debate has come up before and my position hasn't changed at all. I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure. Personally I don't support either assisted suicide(as in Switzerland) or voluntary euthanasia(as in Holland). Our aim is to persuade parliament that the law needs to be changed to be more in line with that of Oregon(changed in 1997 and followed by many other US states such as California, Colorado, Washington DC). I appreciate the discomfort that some people may feel about the whole idea but, given that adequate and rigorous safeguards are applied, I fieel the need for compassion in this whole area is paramount.

[Robbie]

Trent:-
Why then do I feel uneasy? Probably because I don't trust our system of government to do the hard work to enable those checks and balances to be put in place. If they do it, they'll farm it out to some friends who run non-existent ferries or who have stocks of non-existent PPE and let them come up with a system.
....
I agree.

Also agree with this from enki:-
I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure.

[Steve H]

This debate has come up before and my position hasn't changed at all. I strongly support the campaign for Dignity in Dying which promotes the goal of assisted dying with the aim of ending the unnecessary suffering that some dying people are forced to endure. Personally I don't support either assisted suicide(as in Switzerland) or voluntary euthanasia(as in Holland). Our aim is to persuade parliament that the law needs to be changed to be more in line with that of Oregon(changed in 1997 and followed by many other US states such as California, Colorado, Washington DC). I appreciate the discomfort that some people may feel about the whole idea but, given that adequate and rigorous safeguards are applied, I feel the need for compassion in this whole area is paramount.

You support assisted dying, but you don't support either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia? I'm confused. Please explain.

[Roses]

I would have thought assisted dying and assisted suicide were one and the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would have thought assisted dying and assisted suicide were one and the same.

Me too - what is the difference? Enki - as you've indicated you support assisted dying but not assisted suicide can you explain the difference please.

[Enki]

You support assisted dying, but you don't support either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia? I'm confused. Please explain.

Fair enough.

Assisted dying gives terminally ill, mentally competent adults  choice and control over the time of death.

Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to die either with help or directly at the hands of a medical practitioner.

[Roses]

Fair enough.

Assisted dying gives terminally ill, mentally competent adults  choice and control over the time of death.

Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia allows chronically ill and disabled people who are not dying to die either with help or directly at the hands of a medical practitioner.

That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.

[Enki]

That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.

That's up to you.  I was asked to describe the differences, which I have done.

[Roses]

That's up to you.  I was asked to describe the differences, which I have done.

There is no difference.

[Aruntraveller]

That makes no sense at all, people who are assisted to die because they wish to end their lives, for whatever reason, are still being assisted to kill themselves, i.e. suicide.

As I read Enki, it is more to do with the state of the patient that defines whether or not they can be assisted with their death according to this definition. So somebody who is suffering from terminal lung cancer could opt for this method whereas somebody who has perhaps had a stroke and is left immobile with little speech would not be eligible as their condition however unpleasant it is, is not terminal.