Euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[Enki]

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.

Quite correct, Trent.

[Roses]

Quite correct, Trent.

So in your opinion only people who are terminally ill should opt for assisted suicide, even if if their lives are unbearable due to a condition, which isn't treatable?

[Enki]

So in your opinion only people who are terminally ill should opt for assisted suicide, even if if their lives are unbearable due to a condition, which isn't treatable?

This might be of help in understanding my position.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/

[Roses]

This might be of help in understanding my position.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/

I still cannot see the difference.

[ProfessorDavey]

This might be of help in understanding my position.

https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/blog-post/assisted-dying-not-assisted-suicide/

Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.

At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is it with this topic?
Is someone looking for a new way to describe Covid deaths so its less embarrassing for the Tories?

[Roses]

What is it with this topic?
Is someone looking for a new way to describe Covid deaths so its less embarrassing for the atomise?

Ehhhhhh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ehhhhhh?

Sorry predictive text. Something we don’t need a machine for when it comes to your posts..

 

[Roses]

Sorry predictive text. Something we don’t need a machine for when it comes to your posts..

 

Your previous post didn't make any sense, nothing new there of course.

[ippy]

What is the current position on anyone that assists some other person that wants to end it all on their journey to Switzerland?

What happens to those that assist when they return to the U K, I don't recollect seeing or hearing of anyone being prosecuted for giving such assistance?

Why not cut out the journey bit save these people all of the extra grief for them and those that accompany them?

Why not do the right thing in the first place here, with the application of as many of safeguards possible?

Having said about safeguards we all know they will not be perfect but in the majority of peoples minds here in the U K it'll make it a lot better than how things stand at the moment.

If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.     

[Enki]

Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.

At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.

The Dignity in Dying Campaign suggest that the cut off point is a prognosis of six months or less to live.

I agree that it is a difficult and nuanced area to propose legislation for but my feeling is that the legislation needs clarifying and should reflect real compassion albeit with a strong regard for powerful safeguards. Some time ago I listened to and talked to a lady whose husband wished to end his life at a point of his choosing(he had a terminal illness), and, with the full acquiescence of her family, this was carried out abroad. It was at this point I decided to look into the whole idea of assisted dying and became convinced that it was a sensible and compassionate way forward for this country.

[Steve H]

If enki had just said that he approved of assisted suicide and euthanasia for the terminally ill, but not otherwise, there'd've been no misunderstanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the current position on anyone that assists some other person that wants to end it all on their journey to Switzerland?

What happens to those that assist when they return to the U K, I don't recollect seeing or hearing of anyone being prosecuted for giving such assistance?

Why not cut out the journey bit save these people all of the extra grief for them and those that accompany them?

Why not do the right thing in the first place here, with the application of as many of safeguards possible?

Having said about safeguards we all know they will not be perfect but in the majority of peoples minds here in the U K it'll make it a lot better than how things stand at the moment.

If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.     

My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.

[ippy]

My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.

You've got my post at the head of some writings of yours Vlad?

What has capitol punishment got to do with assisted dying?

When our U K government eventually brings in a system of assisted dying it won't mean that you or anyone else that doesn't want to be involved will be forced to take part.

All of the U K polls taken about assisted dying have been showing over 80% of the U K's population wishes to have some sort of system set up to help these usually desperate people so why not let them have it, or do you think you know better than this and want to force your point of view on everyone else?

It's not as though when the inevitable happens you or anyone else would be forced to take the assisted dying option.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've got my post at the head of some writings of yours Vlad?

What has capitol punishment got to do with assisted dying?

When our U K government eventually brings in a system of assisted dying it won't mean that you or anyone else that doesn't want to be involved will be forced to take part.

All of the U K polls taken about assisted dying have been showing over 80% of the U K's population wishes to have some sort of system set up to help these usually desperate people so why not let them have it, or do you think you know better than this and want to force your point of view on everyone else?

It's not as though when the inevitable happens you or anyone else would be forced to take the assisted dying option.

 

When assisted dying takes place and the first case of malpractice happens or report of people forced into it I will be thinking of the guilt and sense of guilt those proponents of it should have.

[Roses]

If it was legal to assist someone to die here in the UK, and I was a younger person, I  would have no hesitation in training to be one of those assistants.

[ippy]

When assisted dying takes place and the first case of malpractice happens or report of people forced into it I will be thinking of the guilt and sense of guilt those proponents of it should have.

When was the last time you saw a perfect piece of legislation and having said that the assisted dying that's legal in Oregon USA is working quiet well without any significant problems so far and on checking with Proff Google it looks like there are ten countries that have legalised A D without hitting any kind of headline news type abuses to be heard of, perhaps you might know about any?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it was legal to assist someone to die here in the UK, and I was a younger person, I  would have no hesitation in training to be one of those assistants.

Youre an angel.

[Roses]

Youre an angel.

Very true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If for some reason there are those that don't agree with assisted dying, say for religious reasons, fine you don't have to be involved, don't do it but leave the rest of us alone to make up our own minds without having to suffer the possibility of prosecution for, i m o, performing an humane act.     

Is this all about wanting to stick one on the church,

Removing whatever gets in the way of what you want......or what exactly.

[jeremyp]

Thanks Enki - I understand the definitions now, although I don't think this clear from the terminology nor understood by the general public.

At what point do you draw a distinction between someone terminally ill and a person that isn't. For example someone with an incurable and degenerative condition that will ultimately kill them, but perhaps not for years.

The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.

Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.

[Nearly Sane]

The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.

Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.

Completely agree

[Roses]

The link says your prognosis has to be six months or less. That's where the line is drawn.

Personally, I think it's a useless idea. It's the prospect of years of unbearable pain - especially with no foreseeable end to it if my condition is not terminal - that would prompt me to seek to end it all, not just trying to short circuit the last six months.

I agree.

[jeremyp]

My understanding is that the last time people were legally terminated was when capital punishment was legal. Even here the executioners I believe were still required to have a court trial from which they were invariably acquitted or pardoned or something. The purpose was to maintain definitions of lawful and unlawful killing I believe but it strikes me that a rigorous investigation of each death would act as a deterrence from shenanigans.

I can't say whether the thing about executioners being put on trial is true or not but I do remember having an argument with a Christian on this forum - or maybe it was the BBC board - about assisted suicide. He maintained that no deliberate killing should go without a trial however legitimate the reason (ignoring things like wars etc).

In a moment of flippancy, I suggested having the trial before the assisted suicide takes place. If the assistant is found "guilty" they can choose not to do the assisting and nobody actually gets murdered. It's a bit of a useless idea to put the assistant on trial after the alleged suicide and find out only then that what they did was illegal.

Then it occurred to me that this is actually a good idea. I would be in favour of legalising assisted suicide for anybody who wants it as long as a court hearing occurs before the fact that determines that the person requesting assisted suicide is doing it voluntarily and is competent to make such decisions.

[Roses]

I can't say whether the thing about executioners being put on trial is true or not but I do remember having an argument with a Christian on this forum - or maybe it was the BBC board - about assisted suicide. He maintained that no deliberate killing should go without a trial however legitimate the reason (ignoring things like wars etc).

In a moment of flippancy, I suggested having the trial before the assisted suicide takes place. If the assistant is found "guilty" they can choose not to do the assisting and nobody actually gets murdered. It's a bit of a useless idea to put the assistant on trial after the alleged suicide and find out only then that what they did was illegal.

Then it occurred to me that this is actually a good idea. I would be in favour of legalising assisted suicide for anybody who wants it as long as a court hearing occurs before the fact that determines that the person requesting assisted suicide is doing it voluntarily and is competent to make such decisions.

I don't think a court hearing is a good idea, partly because courts are far too busy anyway. An assessment by two psychiatrists should be the route to take, in my opinion.