Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on July 01, 2015, 03:07:51 AM
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
The woman, who is identified only as Laura, will receive a lethal injection from health experts despite not suffering from any life-threatening illness.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/belgian-doctors-euthanise-healthy-24-year-old-woman-suffering-depression-1508578
And one of the comments:
Her life, her choice. Nobody else should insist that a person keep on living when their life is filled with nothing but despair, and that life is more of a "punishment" than anything else. She wants to go peacefully and without the drama/stigma attached to suicide.
-
Happy Wednesday, Keith!
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
-
Has she exhausted ALL the psychiatrists in Belgium then ?????
We need to know more about this case.....
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
-
If that woman's life is hell on earth and the best efforts of the psychiatrists can't alleviate her suffering, I think she should have the right to end it, with help if necessary.
-
No response from the fundamentalist Christian right I see!
-
Ah, the slippery slope! Depression is indeed an illness and she is not healthy. A dreadful illness too.
However, as much as she may have the right to commit suicide I think it is an awful thing for doctors to be injecting her. They are surely breaking their hippocratic oath.
Such a sad story
-
Here is the story as reported in Belgium
http://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/laura-is-24-jaar-en-fysiek-gezond-ze-krijgt-deze-zomer-euthanasie-a2367037/
-
Ah, the slippery slope! Depression is indeed an illness and she is not healthy. A dreadful illness too.
However, as much as she may have the right to commit suicide I think it is an awful thing for doctors to be injecting her. They are surely breaking their hippocratic oath.
Such a sad story
Surely helping a person to end appalling suffering is better than living in a state of utmost misery?
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
-
No response from the fundamentalist Christian right I see!
What's the matter?
Not been presented with the baiting opportunities that you'd hoped for?
-
No response from the fundamentalist Christian right I see!
What's the matter?
Not been presented with the baiting opportunities that you'd hoped for?
Says the master baiter.
-
"I'm a wanker, I'm a wanker and it does me good like it bloody well should ...... "
-
Surely helping a person to end appalling suffering is better than living in a state of utmost misery?
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
I think the problem is that there is no consistent attitude to this even amongst those who suffer from such appalling conditions. As we have said in previous threads on this subject, the danger can be that such a law can be abused by unscrupulous relatives.
-
Surely helping a person to end appalling suffering is better than living in a state of utmost misery?
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
I think the problem is that there is no consistent attitude to this even amongst those who suffer from such appalling conditions. As we have said in previous threads on this subject, the danger can be that such a law can be abused by unscrupulous relatives.
I am not sure why you would think that there would need to be a consistent attitude amongst those suffering these conditions?
-
Surely helping a person to end appalling suffering is better than living in a state of utmost misery?
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
I think the problem is that there is no consistent attitude to this even amongst those who suffer from such appalling conditions. As we have said in previous threads on this subject, the danger can be that such a law can be abused by unscrupulous relatives.
Hi Hope,
But you seem to be saying that because it is not possible to draft a perfect law, we can't allow those who dying a slow and painful death to end their suffering.
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
I wasn't making a comment on whether I think that assisted suicide is appropriate in this case, merely pointing out that someone with severe depression isn't healthy.
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
I wasn't making a comment on whether I think that assisted suicide is appropriate in this case, merely pointing out that someone with severe depression isn't healthy.
Quite so, I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between an illness that can be treated and one that can't.
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
I wasn't making a comment on whether I think that assisted suicide is appropriate in this case, merely pointing out that someone with severe depression isn't healthy.
Quite so, I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between an illness that can be treated and one that can't.
It is a bit more complicated than that - I'm sure there are plenty of people with severe depression who would argue that their depression cannot be treated effectively at all and that the illness (even with the very best treatment) is as debilitating as many physical illnesses and conditions that also can be treated (albeit not necessarily cured).
-
I am struggling a little with the idea that a person this depressed would be worried about the 'drama/stigma of suicide'. Effectively this is a suicide
-
My cousin's depression, which he has had for about 20 years or so, seems to be getting worse and worse, he seems so miserable every time I phone him. :( He attempted suicide a year or two back!
-
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
That says a great deal about you, Floo.
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
I wasn't making a comment on whether I think that assisted suicide is appropriate in this case, merely pointing out that someone with severe depression isn't healthy.
Quite so, I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between an illness that can be treated and one that can't.
It is a bit more complicated than that - I'm sure there are plenty of people with severe depression who would argue that their depression cannot be treated effectively at all and that the illness (even with the very best treatment) is as debilitating as many physical illnesses and conditions that also can be treated (albeit not necessarily cured).
That's rather a 'depressing' view. Many cases can be treated successfully.
-
If that woman's life is hell on earth and the best efforts of the psychiatrists can't alleviate her suffering, I think she should have the right to end it, with help if necessary.
Is help necessary? Suicide is legal. she has the right to die. Why does she want someone else to kill her?
-
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
That says a great deal about you, Floo.
I take that as a compliment, that am willing to help in that way!
-
Belgian doctors have given the green signal to perform euthanasia on a healthy 24-year-old woman, who suffers from serious depression.
Someone suffering from clinical depression is not healthy. Depression is an illness.
Exactly.
BUT - a person with depression may lead a happy and contented life - with the right treatment and support - as opposed to a person with a terminal cancer or motor neuron disease (for example).
I wasn't making a comment on whether I think that assisted suicide is appropriate in this case, merely pointing out that someone with severe depression isn't healthy.
Quite so, I was just pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between an illness that can be treated and one that can't.
It is a bit more complicated than that - I'm sure there are plenty of people with severe depression who would argue that their depression cannot be treated effectively at all and that the illness (even with the very best treatment) is as debilitating as many physical illnesses and conditions that also can be treated (albeit not necessarily cured).
That's rather a 'depressing' view. Many cases can be treated successfully.
But not all - that's the point.
-
Seems wrong to allow this as obviously her judgement on her condition cannot be relied on.
-
No one should be murdering anyone, especially if their judgement is impaired.
Murder entails killing somebody against their will, not with it.
Duh.
-
Seems wrong to allow this as obviously her judgement on her condition cannot be relied on.
Yes, I think there is a big issue here of consent and whether someone suffering with severe depression is really able to consent to doctors providing the lethal injection.
-
Seems wrong to allow this as obviously her judgement on her condition cannot be relied on.
Yes, I think there is a big issue here of consent and whether someone suffering with severe depression is really able to consent to doctors providing the lethal injection.
In the old lingo depression is for the most part a neurotic rather than a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia and the manic phase of bipolar disorder. While there are instances of psychotic depression, these are extremely rare; overwhelmingly depression is an emotional disorder but not one which entails delusions, hallucinations and other aberrations in reality testing. So on the strength of what I've read thus far I don't see why she wouldn't be considered competent to give informed consent.
-
Seems wrong to allow this as obviously her judgement on her condition cannot be relied on.
Yes, I think there is a big issue here of consent and whether someone suffering with severe depression is really able to consent to doctors providing the lethal injection.
If we are ever to have a euthanasia law in this country, I think it is important that the patient controls the process and hence takes responsibility for their death. Technically this need not be difficult these days, an eye movement can trigger an automated syringe pump.
-
I am not sure why you would think that there would need to be a consistent attitude amongst those suffering these conditions?
Largely because those who are in favour of such legislation tend to generalise the need for it, when it is very much case-specific. It would be interesting to know to what extent the courts were involved in this Belgian case.
-
Seems wrong to allow this as obviously her judgement on her condition cannot be relied on.
Yes, I think there is a big issue here of consent and whether someone suffering with severe depression is really able to consent to doctors providing the lethal injection.
In the old lingo depression is for the most part a neurotic rather than a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia and the manic phase of bipolar disorder. While there are instances of psychotic depression, these are extremely rare; overwhelmingly depression is an emotional disorder but not one which entails delusions, hallucinations and other aberrations in reality testing. So on the strength of what I've read thus far I don't see why she wouldn't be considered competent to give informed consent.
Not sure that is necessarily the case.
The element of valid consent most likely to be problematic in these case is capacity to consent. This is often defined as the ability of a person to understand the information that is provided, to believe it and recognise its importance, to be able to weigh the options and finally to arrive at a decision which can be conveyed to the doctor etc.
The specific difficulty with severe depression is that it may critically affect the ability of the patient to appreciate the significance of the information to the patient's own situation, particularly concerning the illness itself and the probable consequences of treatment options (in this case including lethal injection).
There is also a requirement in such extreme situations of a 'settled' view - thus not fluctuating in line with bouts of the severest depression.
-
I am not sure why you would think that there would need to be a consistent attitude amongst those suffering these conditions?
Largely because those who are in favour of such legislation tend to generalise the need for it, when it is very much case-specific. It would be interesting to know to what extent the courts were involved in this Belgian case.
I think the reverse is true - in other words that those who oppose such legislation tend to generalise the lack of need (there are other options) even though it is self evident that there are patients who would want euthanasia to be available to them despite already being aware of and able to access other options.
The notion that this should be case by case is of course correct, but that leads to a view that the individual should make their own choice from the widest variety of options. So that those that genuinely want to die (with of course strict control over the conditions which would trigger this option) should be allowed to just as those who do not want this option should be just as able to refuse it and choose an option more suitable for them.
-
That just shows you know bugger all about it!
Well then do dazzle us one and all with your expertise.
-
I am not sure why you would think that there would need to be a consistent attitude amongst those suffering these conditions?
Largely because those who are in favour of such legislation tend to generalise the need for it, when it is very much case-specific. It would be interesting to know to what extent the courts were involved in this Belgian case.
This seems arse about face. It is surely progressed on the case of specific cases and the problem is there is a generalised ban.
-
Also I still don't see what the point is in expecting everyone to feel the same in the same circumstances - surely the very point that people are making is that they don't?
-
If the 24 year old had been my daughter I would be extremely upset.
Mental illness is something that leaves people very vunerable mentally and often the patient doesn't see a way forward at that time, IMO it is the Doctors job to try and protect the vunerable person.
Thousands of people have been vunerable to severe depression and felt they had nothing to live for at that time, and have gone on to pass through all that, to find happiness they didn't believe at the time was possible.
I think it is morally wrong to kill someone like that, while their mind is in a vunerable state, in the way someone with mental illness is.
I think a terminal physical illness is arguably different but even then I think you have to be very sure that person really has thought through the implications.
I don't think a mentally ill person can, because mental illness unbalances the mind.
IF there is a case for euthanasia for the mentally ill (for which I'm extremely sceptical), it's very different from that for 'End of life' patients.
-
What is or what are the salient difference(s)?
-
I wasn't asking you.
-
The question remains unanswered - why does this woman need to be killed? she is capable of killing herself.
-
What is or what are the salient difference(s)?
As I pointed out earlier, mental illness is treatable. While I fully accept that current treatments are not perfect, they can work for many, so offering such people an easy-option of suicide does not seem like a good idea.
Secondly, (as has been mentioned) those who are physically fit do not need any assistance to kill themselves.
Those who desperately need an option of euthanasia are those who are facing a slow painful/humiliating death but are physically incapable of taking action themselves or travelling to an overseas facility.
-
I wasn't asking you.
Your post wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, therefore we can't be expected to know.
It was addressed to Lapsed Atheist, who stated that there are or would be great differences in assisted suicide for those slightly nearer the end of their lives than those who are not. I want to know what they are.
-
As I pointed out earlier, mental illness is treatable.
In all cases all of the time, or in only some cases some of the time?
While I fully accept that current treatments are not perfect, they can work for many, so offering such people an easy-option of suicide does not seem like a good idea.
What do you propose to do with the not-many?
Secondly, (as has been mentioned) those who are physically fit do not need any assistance to kill themselves.
Those who desperately need an option of euthanasia are those who are facing a slow painful/humiliating death but are physically incapable of taking action themselves or travelling to an overseas facility.
Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that killing people medically (typically via a large dose of barbiturates) is easy, quick, painless, dignified and certain whereas typical suicide methods (depending on specific method) are none of these.
You wish to die. You can either throw yourself beneath a train, with all that that entails for trauma to the driver, the team needed to scrape up the bits, delay and disruption etc., or you can fall asleep in bed and never wake up. Your call.
-
Why does this woman need to be killed?
-
It's her need, nobody else's.
-
It's her need, nobody else's.
I am not asking why she feels she needs to die.
why does she need to be killed?
-
She feels that her life is a burden to her and she wishes it to come to an end, which is of course her right entirely.
-
She feels that her life is a burden to her and she wishes it to come to an end, which is of course her right entirely.
I am not asking why she feels she needs to die.
Why does she need to be killed?
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
It isn't that hot here.
I understand why she wants to die.
Stop dodging the question. Why doesn't she kill herself? why does she need to be killed?
-
I'm not dodging the question - indeed I've answered it more than once. I'm not responsible for any difficulties you may have with the answer.
As for why she doesn't kill herself, I suggested why in #50.
-
As for why she doesn't kill herself, I suggested why in #50.
You have suggested why she would prefer to die peacefully in her bed rather than under the wheels of a train. But why does she have to get someone else to kill her?
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
It isn't that hot here.
I understand why she wants to die.
Stop dodging the question. Why doesn't she kill herself? why does she need to be killed?
Perhaps consider it in this way.
Why does a person in need of a tooth extraction go to the dentist. Surely they could do it themselves - all you need is a pair of pliers.
I know this sounds touch flippant, but I'd imagine that someone might want to be assisted in dying as this would be the best way to ensure that:
1. It was successful
2. It was painless and
3. It could be done in a planned and dignified manner
-
I'm not dodging the question - indeed I've answered it more than once. I'm not responsible for any difficulties you may have with the answer.
As for why she doesn't kill herself, I suggested why in #50.
Yes you are.
And no you didn't.
Oh no, first Dumb, now Dumber fetches up ::)
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
-
I'm not dodging the question - indeed I've answered it more than once. I'm not responsible for any difficulties you may have with the answer.
As for why she doesn't kill herself, I suggested why in #50.
Yes you are.
And no you didn't.
Oh no, first Dumb, now Dumber fetches up ::)
Oh he's getting flustered now!
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
I did so in #50. Professor Davey has just said essentially the same as I did in that post - why not be an irritating arsehole to him?
-
I'm not dodging the question - indeed I've answered it more than once. I'm not responsible for any difficulties you may have with the answer.
As for why she doesn't kill herself, I suggested why in #50.
Yes you are.
And no you didn't.
Oh no, first Dumb, now Dumber fetches up ::)
Oh he's getting flustered now!
Deliberate obtuseness gets me that way.
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
But I think I have - see above.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
It isn't that hot here.
I understand why she wants to die.
Stop dodging the question. Why doesn't she kill herself? why does she need to be killed?
Perhaps consider it in this way.
Why does a person in need of a tooth extraction go to the dentist. Surely they could do it themselves - all you need is a pair of pliers.
I know this sounds touch flippant, but I'd imagine that someone might want to be assisted in dying as this would be the best way to ensure that:
1. It was successful
2. It was painless and
3. It could be done in a planned and dignified manner
Concepts totally alien to the objectors.
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
I did so in #50. Professor Davey has just said essentially the same as I did in that post - why not being an irritating arsehole to him?
No, in #50 you talked about why she would rather die peacefully in her bed and not under the wheels of a train.
she can die peacefully in her bed without getting a doctor to kill her.
she can die without any trains being nearby without a doctor killing her.
Why does she heed a doctor to kill her in order to die peacefully in her bed?
We are talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Even if the doctor gave her the stuff to take home, she could kill herself. Why does a doctor need to kill her.
"arsehole"? More evidence that you know you are in a corner.
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
But I think I have - see above.
Not quite - but thank you for engaging the question, unlike Shaker!
the dentist v pliers analogy falls down because she isn't faced with a choice between a painful death or getting a doctor to do it.
she can die painlessly, peacefully, in her bed, without getting a doctor to kill her.
-
No, in #50 you talked about why she would rather die peacefully in her bed and not under the wheels of a train.
she can die peacefully in her bed without getting a doctor to kill her.
How?
she can die without any trains being nearby without a doctor killing her.
How?
Why does she heed a doctor to kill her in order to die peacefully in her bed?
Already answered.
We are talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Even if the doctor gave her the stuff to take home, she could kill herself. Why does a doctor need to kill her.
See previous response.
-
she can die peacefully in her bed without getting a doctor to kill her.
How?
she can die without any trains being nearby without a doctor killing her.
How?
By taking medication which would cause her to die peacefully in her bed, obvs.
the kind of stuff they dish out at dignitas, I guess
-
No, in #50 you talked about why she would rather die peacefully in her bed and not under the wheels of a train.
she can die peacefully in her bed without getting a doctor to kill her.
she can die without any trains being nearby without a doctor killing her.
Why does she heed a doctor to kill her in order to die peacefully in her bed?
We are talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Even if the doctor gave her the stuff to take home, she could kill herself. Why does a doctor need to kill her.
"arsehole"? More evidence that you know you are in a corner.
No I set out a number of conditions that need to be met, not just that the death be peaceful and pain free. The key being that it is successful. Sure, she could take an overdose, but without decent medical competence, she might end up waking up in the A&E department rather than dead. She could induce brain damage but not death making the situation worse.
Now this is an argument against assistance rather that specifically getting a doctor to actually do the administration. So there could be a syringe she controls herself but under medical supervision. But actually once there is medical assistance, does it actually matter whether she controls the syringe or the doctor does under her orders. I'm not sure.
-
By taking medication which would cause her to die peacefully in her bed, obvs.
And where is this to be obtained?
the kind of stuff they dish out at dignitas, I guess
She isn't at Dignitas.
-
By taking medication which would cause her to die peacefully in her bed, obvs.
And where is this to be obtained?
the kind of stuff they dish out at dignitas, I guess
She isn't at Dignitas.
I know she isn't at dignitas. I am sure assisted suicide isn't beyond the competence of Belgian doctors. Judging by the chocolates I won in a spot the ball competition this week, the Belgians are a clever lot.
Do you suppose that they would be incapable of giving her what was needed?
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
But I think I have - see above.
Not quite - but thank you for engaging the question, unlike Shaker!
the dentist v pliers analogy falls down because she isn't faced with a choice between a painful death or getting a doctor to do it.
she can die painlessly, peacefully, in her bed, without getting a doctor to kill her.
Without medical assistance I don't think she can be confident that her actions will be successful, painless and dignified.
But there are plenty of things that we might want to happen but can't (for various reasons) bring ourselves to do. For example if we had a much loved pet, even were we able to administer a lethal dose to put that pet down because they were extremely ill, and also knew this to be the best course of action I'm sure many people wouldn't be able to do this themselves, but would need a vet to help.
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
But I think I have - see above.
Not quite - but thank you for engaging the question, unlike Shaker!
the dentist v pliers analogy falls down because she isn't faced with a choice between a painful death or getting a doctor to do it.
she can die painlessly, peacefully, in her bed, without getting a doctor to kill her.
Without medical assistance I don't think she can be confident that her actions will be successful, painless and dignified.
But there are plenty of things that we might want to happen but can't (for various reasons) bring ourselves to do. For example if we had a much loved pet, even were we able to administer a lethal dose to put that pet down because they were extremely ill, and also knew this to be the best course of action I'm sure many people wouldn't be able to do this themselves, but would need a vet to help.
Do patients who attend Dignitas get a peaceful, dignified death, do you think?
-
I can explain it for you - in fact I have done so - but I can't understand it for you. It's perfectly clear to me that you're not especially interested in any answers with which you're furnished and simply see this as an opportunity to go round and round and round with the same inane question which has already been answered by at least one person.
I know shaker of old - this is his way of saying he can't answer the question.
Shaker, don't pretend to be stupid - we all know you're far from it.
We know why she wants to die. But she can kill herself.
We know why she doesn't want to throw herself under a train. But she can kill herself.
We know why she wants to die peacefully in her bed. But she can kill herself.
She wants a doctor to kill her. But she can kill herself.
Why does she need a doctor to kill her when she can kill herself?
No, you have not answered that question.
But I think I have - see above.
Not quite - but thank you for engaging the question, unlike Shaker!
the dentist v pliers analogy falls down because she isn't faced with a choice between a painful death or getting a doctor to do it.
she can die painlessly, peacefully, in her bed, without getting a doctor to kill her.
Without medical assistance I don't think she can be confident that her actions will be successful, painless and dignified.
But there are plenty of things that we might want to happen but can't (for various reasons) bring ourselves to do. For example if we had a much loved pet, even were we able to administer a lethal dose to put that pet down because they were extremely ill, and also knew this to be the best course of action I'm sure many people wouldn't be able to do this themselves, but would need a vet to help.
Do patients who attend Dignitas get a peaceful, dignified death, do you think?
I don't know but I would hope so. Isn't that the whole idea, although I'm sure many people would prefer to be assisted to die in a painless and dignified manner in the familiar surroundings of their own homes rather than a Swiss clinic.
Interestingly the article reports that the woman had attempted suicide on several occasions, clearly unsuccessfully. So it isn't so clear cut that she can kill herself, even leaving aside the issue of pain free etc.
-
As I pointed out earlier, mental illness is treatable.
In all cases all of the time, or in only some cases some of the time?
While I fully accept that current treatments are not perfect, they can work for many, so offering such people an easy-option of suicide does not seem like a good idea.
What do you propose to do with the not-many?
Secondly, (as has been mentioned) those who are physically fit do not need any assistance to kill themselves.
Those who desperately need an option of euthanasia are those who are facing a slow painful/humiliating death but are physically incapable of taking action themselves or travelling to an overseas facility.
Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that killing people medically (typically via a large dose of barbiturates) is easy, quick, painless, dignified and certain whereas typical suicide methods (depending on specific method) are none of these.
You wish to die. You can either throw yourself beneath a train, with all that that entails for trauma to the driver, the team needed to scrape up the bits, delay and disruption etc., or you can fall asleep in bed and never wake up. Your call.
Mental illness is a totally different scenario to 'End of life' illness. My wife has worked in mental health services and it's not uncommon for suicidal patients to make a complete recovery.
No sensible person would do anything to make suicide easier for the mentally ill but no truly compassionate person would wish for a prolonged painful death for a terminally ill patient.
P.S. I wasn't suggesting that the mentally ill ought to kill themselves, simply pointing out the obvious truth that they can.
-
I don't know but I would hope so.
At least one person - Peter Smedley - was filmed killing himself at Dignitas for the documentary made by the late Terry Pratchett. Whether this is available online I don't know.
Isn't that the whole idea, although I'm sure many people would prefer to be assisted to die in a painless and dignified manner in the familiar surroundings of their own homes rather than a Swiss clinic.
Precisely.
-
Mental illness is a totally different scenario to 'End of life' illness. My wife has worked in mental health services and it's not uncommon for suicidal patients to make a complete recovery.
That's splendid but my previous question remains unanswered. What of those who don't?
P.S. I wasn't suggesting that the mentally ill ought to kill themselves, simply pointing out the obvious truth that they can.
In the current system-which-isn't-a-system - let's call it the current state of affairs then - many (but not all) people are able to kill themselves by a variety of methods which can be (a) uncertain, with the potential for the act to be non-lethal and leaving the subject with long-lasting or permanent physical and/or psychological damage; (b) painful; (c) messy; (d) undignified; (e) protracted; (f) highly distressing for those who find the body or (g) any mixture of the preceding. Is this a desirable state of affairs? I say no.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
I have noticed that cyberman doesn't seem to be comprehending today!
-
That's splendid but my previous question remains unanswered. What of those who don't?
I'm sure you realise as well as I do that there is no simple answer to that question. Many treatments and therapies need to be tried. Support groups can make a huge difference. These people can be saved.
In the current system-which-isn't-a-system - let's call it the current state of affairs then - many (but not all) people are able to kill themselves by a variety of methods which can be (a) uncertain, with the potential for the act to be non-lethal and leaving the subject with long-lasting or permanent physical and/or psychological damage; (b) painful; (c) messy; (d) undignified; (e) protracted or (f) any mixture of the preceding. Is this a desirable state of affairs? I say no.
In a free society, people generally are able to kill themselves if they choose. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it's the way it is.
-
I'm sure you realise as well as I do that there is no simple answer to that question. Many treatments and therapies need to be tried. Support groups can make a huge difference. These people can be saved.
All of them?
In a free society, people generally are able to kill themselves if they choose. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it's the way it is.
Why isn't it a good thing? You have a way of answering just slightly past the point of a sentence or statement which is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant. Is it right that people attempt to kill themselves (whether they succeed or not) by any number of methods the possibilities of which I listed (a) to (f) in my previous post?
-
As I pointed out earlier, mental illness is treatable.
In all cases all of the time, or in only some cases some of the time?
While I fully accept that current treatments are not perfect, they can work for many, so offering such people an easy-option of suicide does not seem like a good idea.
What do you propose to do with the not-many?
Secondly, (as has been mentioned) those who are physically fit do not need any assistance to kill themselves.
Those who desperately need an option of euthanasia are those who are facing a slow painful/humiliating death but are physically incapable of taking action themselves or travelling to an overseas facility.
Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that killing people medically (typically via a large dose of barbiturates) is easy, quick, painless, dignified and certain whereas typical suicide methods (depending on specific method) are none of these.
You wish to die. You can either throw yourself beneath a train, with all that that entails for trauma to the driver, the team needed to scrape up the bits, delay and disruption etc., or you can fall asleep in bed and never wake up. Your call.
Mental illness is a totally different scenario to 'End of life' illness. My wife has worked in mental health services and it's not uncommon for suicidal patients to make a complete recovery.
No sensible person would do anything to make suicide easier for the mentally ill but no truly compassionate person would wish for a prolonged painful death for a terminally ill patient.
P.S. I wasn't suggesting that the mentally ill ought to kill themselves, simply pointing out the obvious truth that they can.
I find it frightening that some posters here cannot see the difference between "end of life" illness, and mental illness where the person can make a full recovery.
It sounds as if some of them would be quite happy to murder them even though the people with mental illness makes them very vulnerable at that period in time.
Can they give their unbiased consent at that moment in time? I don't think so.
As someone who has had to deal with a situation recently, involving a vunerable person close to me, personally, their attitude is coming across as hard cold and unempathetic.
They are coming across as decidedly "callous"
Especially Shaker!
You seem to be 'tarring' all with the same brush, albeit with special focus on Shaker.
My involvement in this discussion is firstly to indicate why someone who wants to die might wish for medical assistance to help them rather than doing it themselves.
But additionally I have expressed my concerns over consent issues where someone is suffering from severe depression.
I also acknowledge that for many people depression is readily treatable and for them to be assisted in dying during a period where the depression is severe and treatment is not working wouldn't be right. However treatment is not successful for everyone, and there are people whose lives are permanently blighted and 'unlovable' due to the severest forms of depression. So the question is about those people, in other words people who:
1. Have suffered with very severe depression over many, many years.
2. Have attempted a variety of treatment option none of which have worked
3. Whose depression is such that they consider their life isn't worth living
4. Have a sure and settled view that they would prefer to die rather than continue to live a life so blighted by their illness
5. Want their suicide to be sure to succeed, to be painless and dignified
6. Do not consider that they can achieve (5) without medical assistance
and crucially
7. Are considered to have the capacity to consent.
I am not giving an answer because I think this is one of the hardest of hard cases for medical ethics, but maybe we can focus on a patient in those circumstances, and they do exist.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
I have noticed that cyberman doesn't seem to be comprehending today!
I don't think it is Cyberman who isn't comprehending.
Just those who think it is ok to kill anyone they consider too much bother, and a bit of a embarrassing and inconvenient nuisance.
Mental health costs money I suppose, far cheaper to bump them off.
Especially if their particular illness involves wanting to die, at a given moment in time.
This is nothing to do with cost or inconvenience or any of the other feeble and fatuous Heinz 57 straw men your addled pate can dream up because you haven't the wits to argue on-topic with the details at hand as they actually are instead of how you think they are. This is entirely about Mill's principle of the sovereignty of the individual - what Kant would call treating people as ends in themselves (competent consenting subjects) and not as means to some other end, invariably as pawns for the (with assisted suicide as with abortion, often Catholic) god-botherers and their usual tedious perennial hobbyhorses.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
I have noticed that cyberman doesn't seem to be comprehending today!
I don't think it is Cyberman who isn't comprehending.
Just those who think it is ok to kill anyone they consider too much bother, and a bit of a embarrassing and inconvenient nuisance.
Mental health costs money I suppose, far cheaper to bump them off.
Especially if their particular illness involves wanting to die, at a given moment in time.
Oh don't be so very silly. ::) If a person genuinely wants to die because their life is unbearable due to physical or mental illness, they should have that right, always providing they are deemed capable of making the decision.
-
Eudaimonia or euthanasia? The latter being the only affirmative option after the irreparable failure to attain, or exercise, the former? Otherwise, at best, interminal ennui?
A question of ethics, not preference: does it harm or help more to assist or frustrate an uncoerced demand to die?
-
I think that what's often at work in discussions such as these is that a majority of people desperately want to maintain a Pollyanna-ish facade that everybody can be cured eventually and there'll be a happily-ever-after for everyone in the end, if only there's enough time and effort and money spent in treating them - enough encouragement, enough support, enough medication, enough therapy ... When people like me and Professor Davey come along and point out, quite reasonably, (a) that this isn't true because (b) there are some people - not a numerous class but they do exist - whose lives are utterly ruined by mental illneses such as depression and stay ruined all their lives long, who earnestly and consistently wish to seek an end to their existences (as per the Prof.'s excellent #93), some people just don't know how to react to this ... perhaps since, given that one in four people suffer from some sort of mental illness at some point, it could in principle be any one of us. Not too many people can face up to the fact that some people simply have permanently near-unendurably miserable lives, who feel as though they'd be better off dead and who is to say they are wrong?
Who wants to think that it could be them?
-
I think that what's often at work in discussions such as these is that a majority of people desperately want to maintain a Pollyanna-ish facade that everybody can be cured eventually and there'll be a happily-ever-after for everyone in the end, if only there's enough time and effort and money spent in treating them. When people like me and Professor Davey come along and point out, quite reasonably, that there are some people - not a numerous class but they do exist - whose lives are utterly ruined by mental illneses such as depression and stay ruined all their lives long, who earnestly and consistently wish to seek an end to their existences (as per the Prof.'s excellent #93), some people just don't know how to react to this ... perhaps since, given that one in four people suffer from some sort of mental illness at some point, it could in principle be any one of us. Not too many people can face up to the fact that some people simply have permanently near-unendurably miserable lives with equanimity.
I think that is right.
Cases that fit with my 7 criteria do exist. We might not wish them to, but that's another matter. In the real world they do.
Now they are likely to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of our consideration in exactly the same manner as any other patient. Again I am not saying I have the answer, but the answer is never to pretend these hard cases don't exist.
And it isn't just mental illness. I have watched both my parents die of cancer. In both cases their lives were clearly tolerably until almost the very end, but the clear distress and suffering both faced in their last few days was clear and obvious. And yet you hear people come out with glib comments that with good palliative care no-one need be in pain, distress of suffer at the end of life. It isn't true. They received excellent palliative care in a specialist unit but in neither case was their final few days free from pain, extreme distress and suffering.
We have to address these issues - we have to face the world as it is now, not the world as we might wish it to be by brushing the 'hard' cases under the carpet, pretending they don't exist.
-
I think that is right.
Cases that fit with my 7 criteria do exist. We might not wish them to, but that's another matter. In the real world they do.
Now they are likely to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of our consideration in exactly the same manner as any other patient. Again I am not saying I have the answer, but the answer is never to pretend these hard cases don't exist.
And it isn't just mental illness. I have watched both my parents die of cancer. In both cases their lives were clearly tolerably until almost the very end, but the clear distress and suffering both faced in their last few days was clear and obvious. And yet you hear people come out with glib comments that with good palliative care no-one need be in pain, distress of suffer at the end of life. It isn't true. They received excellent palliative care in a specialist unit but in neither case was their final few days free from pain, extreme distress and suffering.
We have to address these issues - we have to face the world as it is now, not the world as we might wish it to be by brushing the 'hard' cases under the carpet, pretending they don't exist.
I am sorry to hear of your parents, and sorry for you :(
We are challenging a belief system here. That belief system may have elements of formal, organised religions mixed into it but in a way it's akin to a religious belief in its own right - the just world hypothesis (q.v.) where bad people get their just desserts and good people have long and happy lives, where dearly loved parents don't have cancer (your case) or die too early (mine) and nobody's son, daughter, brother, sister or anything else has a life, all of it, royally shat on from a great height by mental illness. And yet these things do happen; and as with all religious beliefs, when the belief bangs up against reality which says otherwise the believer has the option of reaching for the most ridiculous, inane, far-fetched pseudo-explanations in order to rationalise the belief, or abandoning it.
It all depends on how desperate you are to hang on to the belief, I guess. Most seem to go for the first option.
They say that hard cases make bad law. Correct, no doubt. But like you I'm irritated by those who blithely wave aside the hard cases as though being few in number means they don't need to be addressed. And I'm the one called callous ::)
-
I think that is right.
Cases that fit with my 7 criteria do exist. We might not wish them to, but that's another matter. In the real world they do.
Now they are likely to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of our consideration in exactly the same manner as any other patient. Again I am not saying I have the answer, but the answer is never to pretend these hard cases don't exist.
And it isn't just mental illness. I have watched both my parents die of cancer. In both cases their lives were clearly tolerably until almost the very end, but the clear distress and suffering both faced in their last few days was clear and obvious. And yet you hear people come out with glib comments that with good palliative care no-one need be in pain, distress of suffer at the end of life. It isn't true. They received excellent palliative care in a specialist unit but in neither case was their final few days free from pain, extreme distress and suffering.
We have to address these issues - we have to face the world as it is now, not the world as we might wish it to be by brushing the 'hard' cases under the carpet, pretending they don't exist.
I am sorry to hear of your parents, and sorry for you :(
We are challenging a belief system here. That belief system may have elements of formal, organised religions mixed into it but in a way it's akin to a religious belief in its own right - the just world hypothesis (q.v.) where bad people get their just desserts and good people have long and happy lives, where dearly loved parents don't have cancer (your case) or die too early (mine) and nobody's son, daughter, brother, sister or anything else has a life, all of it, royally shat on from a great height by mental illness. And yet these things do happen; and as with all religious beliefs, when the belief bangs up against reality which says otherwise the believer has the option of reaching for the most ridiculous, inane, far-fetched pseudo-explanations in order to rationalise the belief, or abandon it.
It all depends on how desperate you are to hang on to the belief, I guess.
I think it is more complicated than that.
There are many people who, in the hypothetical world, pretend these cases don't exist and therefore those hard questions don't need answering. But in the real world they know they do, because many people will have lived them too. My examples (and by the way both my parents died too young in my view - both between 70 and 80) aren't uncommon at all - indeed talk to the palliative care nurses and the kind of experience over the last 2-3 days of life I experienced with my mum and dad are pretty standard. So many people who want to pretend these things don't happen will have experienced them too with their loved ones.
Now again I'm not saying I have an answer, just that we have to face these hard ethical dilemmas. In my case do I think my mum and dad wanted to die in the last few days of live - yes, there is very little doubt - they had had enough, enough of the pain, enough of the suffering of the distress of the indignity. And crucially in those last few days they had deteriorated to an extent (in part driven by the morphine load needed to control pain) that no meaningful interaction with loved ones was possible any more.
What do I think they (and I) would have done had their been an option to end their lives a couple of days before they actually died to avoid those horrible last few hours. I don't know.
-
I think that what's often at work in discussions such as these is that a majority of people desperately want to maintain a Pollyanna-ish facade that everybody can be cured eventually and there'll be a happily-ever-after for everyone in the end, if only there's enough time and effort and money spent in treating them. When people like me and Professor Davey come along and point out, quite reasonably, that there are some people - not a numerous class but they do exist - whose lives are utterly ruined by mental illneses such as depression and stay ruined all their lives long, who earnestly and consistently wish to seek an end to their existences (as per the Prof.'s excellent #93), some people just don't know how to react to this ... perhaps since, given that one in four people suffer from some sort of mental illness at some point, it could in principle be any one of us. Not too many people can face up to the fact that some people simply have permanently near-unendurably miserable lives with equanimity.
I think that is right.
Cases that fit with my 7 criteria do exist. We might not wish them to, but that's another matter. In the real world they do.
Now they are likely to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of our consideration in exactly the same manner as any other patient. Again I am not saying I have the answer, but the answer is never to pretend these hard cases don't exist.
And it isn't just mental illness. I have watched both my parents die of cancer. In both cases their lives were clearly tolerably until almost the very end, but the clear distress and suffering both faced in their last few days was clear and obvious. And yet you hear people come out with glib comments that with good palliative care no-one need be in pain, distress of suffer at the end of life. It isn't true. They received excellent palliative care in a specialist unit but in neither case was their final few days free from pain, extreme distress and suffering.
We have to address these issues - we have to face the world as it is now, not the world as we might wish it to be by brushing the 'hard' cases under the carpet, pretending they don't exist.
My father was terminally ill with prostate cancer in 2005, he was in a lot of pain which his morphine dose wasn't easing. As a family we insisted the dose was upped so he wasn't in any pain even though we were warned the result would be his death. He died within hours of the does being increased. We were relieved he was no longer suffering.
-
I think that is right.
Cases that fit with my 7 criteria do exist. We might not wish them to, but that's another matter. In the real world they do.
Now they are likely to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of our consideration in exactly the same manner as any other patient. Again I am not saying I have the answer, but the answer is never to pretend these hard cases don't exist.
And it isn't just mental illness. I have watched both my parents die of cancer. In both cases their lives were clearly tolerably until almost the very end, but the clear distress and suffering both faced in their last few days was clear and obvious. And yet you hear people come out with glib comments that with good palliative care no-one need be in pain, distress of suffer at the end of life. It isn't true. They received excellent palliative care in a specialist unit but in neither case was their final few days free from pain, extreme distress and suffering.
We have to address these issues - we have to face the world as it is now, not the world as we might wish it to be by brushing the 'hard' cases under the carpet, pretending they don't exist.
I am sorry to hear of your parents, and sorry for you :(
We are challenging a belief system here. That belief system may have elements of formal, organised religions mixed into it but in a way it's akin to a religious belief in its own right - the just world hypothesis (q.v.) where bad people get their just desserts and good people have long and happy lives, where dearly loved parents don't have cancer (your case) or die too early (mine) and nobody's son, daughter, brother, sister or anything else has a life, all of it, royally shat on from a great height by mental illness. And yet these things do happen; and as with all religious beliefs, when the belief bangs up against reality which says otherwise the believer has the option of reaching for the most ridiculous, inane, far-fetched pseudo-explanations in order to rationalise the belief, or abandoning it.
It all depends on how desperate you are to hang on to the belief, I guess. Most seem to go for the first option.
They say that hard cases make bad law. Correct, no doubt. But like you I'm irritated by those who blithely wave aside the hard cases as though being few in number means they don't need to be addressed. And I'm the one called callous ::)
You are trying to make out that this is a ''fact'' movement against a religious movement. It isn't.
What you represent is a hegemony desiring Lordship over what you see as the lesser population that has got to include the power of life and death.
-
What you represent is a hegemony desiring Lordship over what you see as the lesser population that has got to include the power of life and death.
Oh, bullshit.
Delusion knows no bounds with you, does it?
-
What a lot of rubbish! This has nothing to do with religious belief.
No? Who is more likely to be found agitating to deny people freedom and choice in their own destinies and in the course and conduct of their own lives and deaths - atheists or religionists?
-
Delusion knows no bounds with you, does it?
You are the one who thinks he represents ''the Facts''.
-
... which is more than you've ever done or will ever do.
-
... which is more than you've ever done or will ever do.
Any evidence Shaker?...........or is it just sanctimonious Shakeshit?
-
It's not either, or
It's certainly not an answer to the question I posed, that's for sure.
-
Evidently the heat today has done something to send your ability to comprehend short and simple sentences very badly awry. Have a cold drink and go indoors with a fan on or something.
I have noticed that cyberman doesn't seem to be comprehending today!
I don't think it is Cyberman who isn't comprehending.
Just those who think it is ok to kill anyone they consider too much bother, and a bit of a embarrassing and inconvenient nuisance.
Mental health costs money I suppose, far cheaper to bump them off.
Especially if their particular illness involves wanting to die, at a given moment in time.
Oh don't be so very silly. ::) If a person genuinely wants to die because their life is unbearable due to physical or mental illness, they should have that right, always providing they are deemed capable of making the decision.
She does have the right to die. Suicide is not illegal. the question which shaker was pretending not to understand was - why does she need a doctor to kill her? why can't she just kill herself?
-
Shaker understood the question and answered it. Why are you pretending not to understand the answer? Or are you not pretending at all and just, in fact, stupid?
-
Shaker understood the question and answered it. Why are you pretending not to understand the answer? Or are you not pretending at all and just, in fact, stupid?
You know you have not answeed the question. Why wouldn't she take some prescribed meds, prescribed for the purpose (just like they do in Switzerland) and kill herself?
Your only answer has been to say that she wants to die, doesn't want to use a train, and wants to die peacefully in bed. You have not explained why that requires someone else to kill her.
And you know you haven't, which is why all you can do is keep repeating the lie "I have answered that and you're just to stupid to see it" (rather like the emperor's new clothes).
Why does she need to be killed rather then kill herself?
-
Shaker understood the question and answered it. Why are you pretending not to understand the answer? Or are you not pretending at all and just, in fact, stupid?
[/b]
Usual recourse to casting aspersions on someone's intelligence - and this from the professor of all-knowledge: philosopher, theologian, scientist, and anything else you care to mention!!
-
Surely helping a person to end appalling suffering is better than living in a state of utmost misery?
If assisted dying became legal in this country, I would be prepared to help people die if proper training was offered first.
So you walk in on a friend who you know suffers from depression but they are unconscious on the floor having apparently taken an overdose of pills. I would call an ambulance. What would you do?
-
Rose,
So we have a minority of people who decide to checkout.
What is the problem?
Maybe they could've decided that they had enough of what this life had to offer and wanted to move on. We shouldn't automatically assume that this life is for everyone.
For all we know they may be in a much better place than us. To me, it's their choice.
-
You divided the world into two camps, the religious and the non religious.
...
Who is more likely to be found agitating to deny people freedom and choice in their own destinies and in the course and conduct of their own lives and deaths - atheists or religionists?
Firstly I need to point out that you are doing the classic conflating non religious people with atheists - these are not the same group. There are plenty of non religious people who aren't atheist.
Secondly, in answer to you question. Without doubt the religious are much more likely to be agitating to restrict freedoms and choice than the non religious. And that isn't just in highly restrictive theocratic countries, but also in westernised democratic ones.
So on euthanasia it is largely (but not exclusively) religious people who refuse even to countenance the notion of giving patients the freedom of choice to end their lives as one option.
And of course recently we've seen furious agitating by religious people in many countries to maintain restrictions on freedom of choice for gay people to marry.
-
You divided the world into two camps, the religious and the non religious.
...
Who is more likely to be found agitating to deny people freedom and choice in their own destinies and in the course and conduct of their own lives and deaths - atheists or religionists?
Firstly I need to point out that you are doing the classic conflating non religious people with atheists - these are not the same group. There are plenty of non religious people who aren't atheist.
Secondly, in answer to you question. Without doubt the religious are much more likely to be agitating to restrict freedoms and choice than the non religious. And that isn't just in highly restrictive theocratic countries, but also in westernised democratic ones.
So on euthanasia it is largely (but not exclusively) religious people who refuse even to countenance the notion of giving patients the freedom of choice to end their lives as one option.
And of course recently we've seen furious agitating by religious people in many countries to maintain restrictions on freedom of choice for gay people to marry.
i wouldn't agree it is largely religious people who object to euthanasia, that's just a way of avoiding the ethical issue it raises.
I don't object to euthanising mental health patients because of religious beliefs, but because of ethical considerations.
It goes against the idea of medical ethics, especially on the issue of mental illness.
It's to easy to kill people in Belgium, it appears consent isn't always required either.
Plus it mirrors the thinking that persecuted Homosexuals in the first place, it's so open to abuse, which you will see if you read my links.
They have already "put down" one transsexual person who had a botched operation.
What counselling did he get? If any.
What about his right to claim negligence?
Very convenient for the medical profession over there, that the poor chap was depressed enough to ask to be bumped off, rather than resort to asking why the op was so badly botched.
I think you are misconstruing what I said. My words were:
'So on euthanasia it is largely (but not exclusively) religious people who refuse even to countenance the notion of giving patients the freedom of choice to end their lives as one option.'
And I stand by that statement. Note I talk about refusal to countenance patients having the freedom to end their lives as an option. Those that completely oppose this, on principle, as a matter of dogma, without being prepared to accept that there may be some circumstance where it can be acceptable tend to be religious and tend to use their religious belief to support a fundamental opposition.
Also to suggest that those who are not implacably opposed are dodging the issue is bizarre. The vast, vast majority of those who do not oppose allowing a patient to chose to die clearly recognise that this has to be on a case by case basis and that requires intense consideration of the situations where this option is reasonable and those where it is not. So for example the discussion we are currently having as to whether the distinction between mental and physical illness is relevant - or whether the option can only be available for patients who are terminally ill (and perhaps in the very late stages) rather than for patients who have conditions that aren't life limiting per se, but completely destroy (in the opinion of the patient) their quality of life.
All these are hugely important issues to be discussed and those who refuse to engage in that debate aren't those who don't object on principle but need to consider very carefully the criteria. Nope, those who won't engage are those who will never, ever countenance anyone being supported to die if that it their very, very firmly held desire. And I would argue once again that those dogmatic (or on principle) objectors in all cases tend to be disproportionately religious.
And then, of course, there is the disingenuous attempt to portray a dogmatic opposition to being one based on pragmatism. Often the 'oh but there isn't any need for assisted suicide etc because we can now control pain, or have palliative care when this is firstly highly paternalist (we know best), secondly not true as the control of pain often leads to related loos of dignity, major suffering and discomfort and actually mental anguish, any one of which may be just as important to the patient as the pain itself. Finally of course the argument is fundamentally disingenuous as these people will still refuse to countenance assisted dying even if it were proved that the patient's unbearable suffering and pain could not be controlled.
-
Meanwhile in Japan ...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33362387
-
Meanwhile in Japan ...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33362387
I think it's obvious, so much so that it was pointed out in the article: Japan has no very long culture of Christianity and so the old Christian attitude that suicide was not only wrong but a very grave sin and, for Catholics, a mortal sin never really took hold. Suicide is woven into the fabric of Japanese culture - the high suicide rate is scarcely a surprise, surely.
-
This afternoon I was talking to a neighbour that I haven't seen for sometime. She told me her 15 year old granddaughter was in a secure unit having attempted suicide three times. Heartbreaking. The good news is that she is making progress at the unit.
But the OP brought to mind a girl that was hospitalised with me in the sixties when I had treatment for manic depression. The girl was a similar age to myself - about seventeen and was suffering with severe depression. All avenues of treatment had been exhausted - psycho- therapy and drugs; so the decision was made to perform a lobotomy.
She disappeared for about six months. Then, one day I came across her in the hospital. The difference was incredible. She was a completely different personality - bubbly, confident and all smiles. I remember being quite taken aback and wondered how her family had felt towards such a huge change. That sounds strange, I know, and I'm not sure anyone will understand what I mean. But it was as though the same girl was now, literally, a different person.
-
Meanwhile in Japan ...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33362387
I think it's obvious, so much so that it was pointed out in the article: Japan has no very long culture of Christianity and so the old Christian attitude that suicide was not only wrong but a very grave sin and, for Catholics, a mortal sin never really took hold. Suicide is woven into the fabric of Japanese culture - the high suicide rate is scarcely a surprise, surely.
Relating it to this thread, if suicide is embedded within the culture, I wonder why euthanasia isn't also. It would seem preferable to that of somebody burning himself up in a train full of people.
-
Ekim,
Yes.
Why is it wrong for society to have a Declaration of Life Annulment?
It could be a legal document which anyone could print out, sign, take to their doctor and the doctor or hospital would then be obligated by law to provide a peaceful life-ending medication.
We should let people be able to go quietly without all the fuss and endangering other people.
-
IMO that is ok -if we have right to end our lives, facilities should be available such that it is possible to do so. This could be at your own cost or subsidised or means tested, possibly free. Probably we wouldn't allow people to build up debts then opt for suicide or leave dependents to the resposibility of the state.
I don't see why doctors need be involved except if there is a possibilty that the applcant cannot be considered responsible for their decisions - ie suffering from a mental affliction. Doctors could certify ability ... possibly also the right to decide could be delegated using a living will or power of attorney. Possibly facilities should be availble for others to challenge the suicide legally.
Most of the difficult cases could be bypassed by having a rule that any estate must be donated to the state except for some special cases eg. Spouse or partner pensions etc, shared accomodation etc. Ie no one apart from the applicant benefits from the death.
Death could be an option for those sentenced to long periods of imprisonment.