To be fair the two cases were very different. In one a mother helped her daughter to commit suicide, the daughter wanted to end her life and tried to do so, the mother tried to help. In the other the mother decided that her mentally handicapped son didn't want to live anymore and killed him. They may well both be operating from compassion but the circumstances are completely different.
Assisted suicide: law to be decriminalised 'by back door' from next week
- Thread starter philip2009
- Start date
To be fair the two cases were very different. In one a mother helped her daughter to commit suicide, the daughter wanted to end her life and tried to do so, the mother tried to help. In the other the mother decided that her mentally handicapped son didn't want to live anymore and killed him. They may well both be operating from compassion but the circumstances are completely different.
As usual, some overclockers members place little value on certain types of life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg
This young man was blind and crippled from birth, yet he produces better music than I can. But never mind, it seems my words will be wasted on this thread...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg
This young man was blind and crippled from birth, yet he produces better music than I can. But never mind, it seems my words will be wasted on this thread...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
Not really sure how that is relevant. As far as I am aware he hasn't expressed a desire to commit suicide, isn't terminally ill, isn't in constant pain. As those countries that allow assisted suicide aren't offing the disabled why do you think if it was available here we would start doing so?
Again, I ask, what right do you have to force me to live in constant pain and with only a increasingly worse future to look forward to?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I disagree with anything that will allow someone to actively participate in someone else's death. If you choose to end your own life, fair enough, but not to have a 3rd party do it. This is very specific for me though, as in I am fine with assisting someone with actions to help them procure their death, but the actual act that kills them should be solely their own.
bam0 you're assuming they'd be able to push a button, flick a switch etc which may not be the case. In some cases patients have absolutely no control over their body depending on what's wrong with them and have no means of reliable communication. What do we do then? Chuck them in a lake and if they swim we know they wanted to live? If not it's their choice to die?
Even if this means people end their lives sooner than they need to? For example with a degenerative disease you would need to end your life before you were unable to do so.
If someone is unable to communicate their wishes and there is no living will etc then assisted suicide should not be an option.
To a point, yes. If you want to die it should be your own action that causes it. I'm fine with as much assistance as is required to allow you to facilitate your death, but the singular act that causes your death should be a sole one that requires your knowledgeable participation.
Quite, if they haven't given an indication of wanting to die then it's not suicide, it's murder.
People already terminate pregnancies if there's a Down's diagnosis. 93% was the rate in the medical literature as of 2002. Is this really a far cry from all this quality of life ******** spouted on here? I'm commenting on a general trend that life seems cheap through the lense here.
Commit suicide if you wish, don't expect me to fund a state that assists it though. That kind of case is precisely what this *isn't exclusive* to. You already discussed the case of a handicapped teenager and a similarly-aged girl who wished to kill herself. You're welcome to disagree but I think your reasoning is deeply flawed. Why should we help those two to die? Legalising is going to require funding. The NHS will likely be the medical body involved in carrying out assessments etc.
I think this needs some more thought before we jump in.
Last edited:
People terminate perefectly healthy pregnancies too, what's your point? This isn't about killing people without their permission "for their own good". It is about assisting people who have decided to end their own lives. I personally would rather have decent legislation surrounding it rather than a legal grey area.
Ah, so it isn't about the sanctity of life, it is about you paying for someone to kill themselves...
Why is my reasoning flawed? I have already stated that the handicapped teenager would not be covered by this as they had absolutely no way of requesting sucide. It was a very tragic case of murder.
I don't know about you but I am much more interested in the quality of my life rather than the quantity of it.
It is probably cheaper to provide enough morphine for a sucide than it would be the care to keep them alive if you really want to argue the financial costs. Personally I would rather this not be an issue about cost.
Too late, it sadly looks like we are going to jump in but in a half arsed manner that doesn't really help anyone.
If they're well enough to make decisions, then what is the grey area? I'm talking about those who are incapable of deciding.
I don't remember too much sympathy for people jumping off buildings. However much I disagree with that, it was their choice. The state didn't enable that. Freedom unfortunately means the freedom to make bad choices on your own. I don't think it is the government's role to be getting involved with assisted suicides. On the other hand, I'm undecided on keeping the penalty under the 1961 act.
Murder is already a crime, so clearly the legal system worked in that case.
The point of the example I gave initially is that disability or handicapping need not worsen the quality of life...
I'm not just arguing about money, the principle of taxing people to fund ventures like this isn't something I can agree with. The arguments on here often revolve around banning things as trivial as burkas yet this is a very contentious issue in the opposite direction. I apologise if that point wasn't well expressed.
Like I said, the penalty needs looking at.
But this is about assisted suicide. If someone is incapable of making a decision by its very nature it isn't assisted suicide.
But it does get involved, it says that you are not allowed to do it. And due to other restrictions (inability to get perscription drugs) the government would have to get involved.
Indeed, but for some it does.
So would you find Swiss style private clinics acceptable? The only government involvement would be the need for perscription drugs to be made available. The cost could be met by fees as could any required oversight?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
Yes but regardless of the intention, the result is the same... some people cannot give their permission, and so someone will make it for them...
and then it would be slippery
Just like when a doctor says that a life support machine should be turned off!
People in the depths of real, genuine, painful depression, whose circumstances show no signs of improving may wish to take their own lives or have their miserable existence terminated. How would the law apply to them? I'm sure that many would make a very good case to a doctor tasked with reviewing their notes that their lives were not worth continuing with.
..........and before you shout me down, I'm speaking from experience.
..........and before you shout me down, I'm speaking from experience.
Rarely done ... very rarely (in fact I have never seen this at all) - you can advise people of their options and the expected scenarios from your experience as a medical professional and from what literature indicates.
But to the OP - the law needs to be quite clear cut on this to save an extra burden on people whom are already going through enough. The current situation is wrong because people are having to commit suicide earlier than they want to if that is the option they want. People are being prevented from living out the full extent of their lives because they are having to terminate their own lives by their own hands because there is a fear that once they can no longer take that action themselves then the ones they would entrust that action to will be prosecuted. But there needs to be quite clear guidance, law and protocols.
This raises two points.
Would people be precluded from making this decision by some psychiatric prerequisite? Most likely yes.
Are mental health diseases, that have no resolution, capable of causing the same debilitation as a physical disease process. The answer here is obviously yes. And by denying them the same opportunity would be to carry on the discrimination against mental health disease when compared in its weighting against a more physically manifested disease.
They key here though is that I state - that have no resolution. There is a big difference between something like Multiple Sclerosis that has a defined route of potentially gradual worsening and a mental health disease that has the chance of successful management or recovery.
Whilst such an experience that you have described is unpleasant it is no difference from someone who was, for example, in kidney failure and felt they could no longer continue. Yes the pain and hopeless felt may be the same if not more than someone who suffers from MS but the chance to get treatment to make a recovery/gain stability is present. This is a key difference. And in that light then the first answer (i.e. the psychiatric evaluation) would be given weight. I strongly suspect a rationale argument given as you indicated would not encompass any chance of recovery as the nature of the disease process you describe does not present itself that way. This lack of ability to project forward into different paths demonstrates that full thought is not being given to the decision thereby how could one say that the person making the decision is in full understanding.