Poll: Terry Pratchet what the...

Euthanasia?

  • I'm in favour of assisted death for anyone who chooses it

    Votes: 252 41.4%

  • I'm in favour provided the person is suffering from a terminal condition

    Votes: 301 49.4%

  • I'm not in favour of assisted death

    Votes: 31 5.1%

  • I hold no opinion about it

    Votes: 25 4.1%
  • Total voters
    609
If it was the guys wishes and it was legal to do why would anyone have a problem with it? Yes i can understand it might upset a few people seeing something like this but its on at a decent time of night when young ones should not be watching .... peace to that man
 
I thought it was a rather interesting documentary although I'd have been curious to hear some more of Rob's views (Terry Pratchett's assistant).

I was actually thinking about starting a thread about euthanasia/assisted suicide/assisted death/whatever you want to call it as it seems like a little while since it was last aired and it might be interesting to see if anyones views have changed. Maybe a kind Don would even give us a poll:
  • I'm in favour of assisted death for anyone who chooses it
  • I'm in favour provided the person is suffering from a terminal condition
  • I'm not in favour of assisted death
  • I hold no opinion about it

Hopefully those choices are reasonable but maybe there's some fine tuning needed. For what it's worth I'd have to put myself in the first category - if someone wants to die and the practical requirements of being able to prove they are of sound mind etc are met then I believe it should be their choice and if they are helped then those people should not suffer prosecution.
 
Not on iplayer :(

I like programs like this, as it's a much needed debate, no one wants to have in government.
On the one hand I think people should be allowed to have assisted suicide. On the other hand it still feels foreign and I'm unsure how suitable safe checks could be regulated if it was only for certain conditions. How would you rule out depression for example, assuming you wanted restrictions in the first place.

Any chance of one more option somewhere between terminal illnesses and for anyone.

I'm not convinced people who have short term problems, like depression should be allowed, or at least not without exploring all other routes first.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Not on iplayer :(

I like programs like this, as it's a much needed debate, no one wants to have in government.
On the one hand I think people should be allowed to have assisted suicide. On the other hand it still feels foreign and I'm unsure how suitable safe checks could be regulated if it was only for certain conditions. How would you rule out depression for example, assuming you wanted restrictions in the first place.
Click to expand...

At present, for Dignitas, the signup process is the best part of a year long, which requires psychological and physiological reports, amongst other things. You'd hope that something would catch depression.

I suppose the other question is if, after a year long signup process, somebody still wishes to commit suicide, should they be stopped whether they are depressed or not?

EDIT: In the poll, can we add an option between "terminal condition" and "anyone who chooses it"? If somebody has something which is not a terminal condition, but leaves them in agony 24 hours a day, I'd argue that assisted suicide should be an option. However, I don't think that it should be an option for all.
 
Last edited:
Fully support the Beeb broadcasting this. It's an important issue that needs airing and is in dire need of some informed and rational debate. I didn't know it was on, so didn't watch it (might catch it later if it's on iPlayer) - hope it gave a fair viewing to both points of view and wasn't overly dramatic.
 
Foolishly, I voted without really thinking it through.

I voted for I'm in favour provided the person is suffering from a terminal condition when really I'm in favour of assisted death for anyone who chooses it is what I should have voted for. Sorry, chaps.
 
Maybe this will push the powers that be to properly explore this issue. To say that people are not being helped to die is wrong because they are - the threshold for what they are helped for and the overtness of it all needs more transparency. It is a mockery really that if your pet dog can't move due to old age or disease the vet will be humane but if you yourself ever find yourself in that position then you have to fly to another country to end your life in not the most ideal conditions.

I don't think it should be for all who choose though because that choice may well be transient etc. We'd have no teenagers left for a start.
 
maustin said:
It is a mockery really that if your pet dog can't move due to old age or disease the vet will be humane but if you yourself ever find yourself in that position then you have to fly to another country to end your life in not the most ideal conditions.
Click to expand...

this tbh, it never ceases to amaze me how humanely we treat our terminally ill pets, yet by comparison, rather inhumanely force our terminally ill loved ones to endure what can be a thoroughly aweful lingering death.
 
The problem is actually that inheritance-hungry relatives will start persuading granny to choose the option. Or choosing the option will become the expected norm..

as in

'Well Gran, so you want to hang around pooing your pants for 4 years for no reason ..and you consider that dignity? I never considered you a selfish person, but I guess you are. God I hate you - why can't you just do the decent, dignified thing that everyone else would do, for once?'

'So Gran, it says here on the internet you're going to cost the NHS £690,000 in treatment because you arn't choosing the decent option -- euthanasia. OK, I'll pay my taxes, so you can lie in pain all day moaning to everyone eh? Selfish cow -- why don't you just die with dignity? Everyone else chooses to .. I certainly would in your shoes - but I guess you think you're better than everyone else??'

'So Gran, 18 people on your ward have chosen Euthanasia -- I can't understand why you'd want to suffer so much for no reason .. why arn't you choosing the 'normal' option -- assisted death? Why choose the 'strange' option? Haven't you had enough attention?'

'Great Gran - I've got to visit you for another 5 years because you haven't got the decency or the bravery to choose Euthanasia? And if we don't have your inheritence within 6 months your grandchildren are going to lose the house they live in because I lost my job. Is THAT what you want? You just hanging around to enjoy seeing us homeless? Great .. just bloody great ...'

etc. etc. and don't tell me it wouldn't happen. Within 3 years they'd be threads on this very board saying 'Cancer victim scum costing us £1.2m a year because he refuses to have a dignified assisted death .. and then has the gaul to complain that he is in immense pain all the time .. what scum'. etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
I watched a similar documentary on channel 4 i think it was, around a year or so ago. They showed the poor man's death as well and it was very informative viewing. For all the people who have a problem with it being shown, try watching the thing instead of making snap judgements.
 
I found the closing part of the programme very hard to watch. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be aired as this is something that is happening and going on.

I missed about 20 minutes of the start of the programme but I question the wife and her reaction to it all. He held the glass in his hand and then paused for a good 8 seconds, before swallowing the poison that will kill him in less than 15 minutes. I was sitting watching and whiling the wife to step in and say something and stop him from doing it...

As I said I missed the start of the programme.. what was he suffering from?
 
britboy4321 said:
/snip
Click to expand...

And because of the potential for some isolated instances of abuse you think that 1:1000 people in the UK that have MS who may need a humane option should be denied or that the "upping of opiates" in terminal patients should not have a degree of transparency to it. Do you also think that life-support machines should never be turned off? Do you think this is an exact science or maybe just maybe there is an rough physical medical criteria of where life and death split and that sometime we should re-evaluate those criteria as society, our knowledge and our ethical structures change.
 
I'll vote if something is added along the lines of "providing the person is proven to be of sound mind":) ( it is kind of included in the 2nd option though i suppose)
 
I've watched two fit, active men - namely my father and grandfather - reduced to bedridden shells of their former selves whilst suffering a drawn-out death, so for me it's quite simple.

If an animal is suffering or is terminally ill, we consider it humane to put it to sleep, but if a human being is in the same position, we consider it humane to allow that person to suffer or force them to see out the rest of their days in a morphine-induced haze.

That is not a fate I want for myself, should I ever find myself in that position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom