Poll: Terry Pratchet what the...

[RDM]

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

There is no real evidence showing this happening in countries that allow assisted suicide so why do you think it would happen here?

 

[RomanNose]

I completely support Euthanasia, I would much rather people who have these terrible illnesses do not have to suffer a painful death. It's the most humane thing to do, it seems as if the opposition to Euthanasia don't have anything to stand on and I am appalled that people are against Euthanasia just because of their religious beliefs.

 

[AHarvey]

Tbh, they should make a program about the other side of the coin, just to show people how bad it can be.

No one that has had to watch someone die a long and drawn out painful death could not support assisted suicides.

We recently said goodbye to my wife's grandfather, he collapsed at home and was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with multiple tuma's in and around his liver. He basically spent the next 4 days in a drug induced sleep and despite being on some pretty heavy painkillers was still suffering a lot of pain.

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

Since a couple of folks have asked I'll see if a mod would mind inserting another option but that does mean those who've already voted might now have voted for the "wrong" option - jp_bl_68 notwithstanding who voted for the wrong one anyway.

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 suppose I'd meant it by implication for any option i.e. they had to be of sound mind when requesting euthanasia initially - if it reached a point where they were no longer of sound mind (e.g. some intervening mental condition such as Alzheimer's) or if they only had reducing periods of lucidity then that shouldn't necessarily invalidate their previous choice. That's one area where it gets really tricky though as picking the period before it is too late may mean people dying far earlier than they need to but equally it's somewhat dubious killing people who are not of sound mind - even if they've previously expressed such a wish.

When i watched the older similar programme, it was because the "poison" was apparantly disgusting tasting, and he requested some water to get rid of the taste. I cant remember if he was given any or not though.

That would seem quite possible, the initial draught is to prevent your stomach rejecting it as it is so foul.

So who thinks people should get the choice to die if they're terminally ill or not? Surely if they were healthy and wanted to die then you could say they're not in the mental position to make such a decision...

You're now asking the question of what is sanity then or in effect posing a Catch 22 (the best thing about the book being that phrase). You can play about with the phrasing but why should someone not have the right to die if they feel life is not worth living? If they wish to die then is it better to leave them to the potential uncertainty of suicide and having their family/friends have to deal with that unexpectedly?

I don't think that assisted death should be granted on a whim so there would probably require some sort of checks on it (a doctors assessment as a minimum most likely) but equally there will be cases where time is ultimately quite important for the patient to avoid intervening loss of mental capacity so some sort of balance needs struck. Essentially we'd have to accept that some people will still not get the death they desire but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

[Theophany]

There is no real evidence showing this happening in countries that allow assisted suicide so why do you think it would happen here?

Because we aren't one of those countries.

I'm all in favour of euthanasia, but I don't think a blanket allowance of it is the way forward. To begin with, it should be limited to those with terminal conditions (and yes, I know, doctors make mistakes) to prevent any kind of systemic abuse. Once it is established and a solid framework of guiding principles and laws is in place, then you can begin to expand it to be a universal right.

But just turning round and saying "hi everybody, who wants to die?" (a la Dr. Nick) is not a step in the right direction.

 

[Marine Iguana]

Amazing and sad at the same time, But if I was in their shoes and felt it was a good time to go then why not.

 

[RDM]

Because we aren't one of those countries.

So what makes you think that the UK would suddenly pressure people in to dieing when it doesn't seem to be happening in those other countries? What is different?

 

[Theophany]

So what makes you think that the UK would suddenly pressure people in to dieing when it doesn't seem to be happening in those other countries? What is different?

I'm not saying that we would have people pushing people to take the suicide route, but we live in a bizarre and quirky culture (much of the population would happily watch criminals hang, yet cry out at assisted suicide) and the backlash against such a move would be significant (the response to the programme in question was illustrative of this).

Whilst this may be a culturally accepted norm in Switzerland, it certainly is not here, nor would it be overnight and these kind of considerations do and should factor into any debate featuring any facet of real-world considerations.

 

[hanluc]

watching now, with an open mind.

 

[Sunbed]

I'm more with Britboy on this one.

I'd like to think that it should be everyone's duty to attempt to stay alive for as long as possible. However, my feelings may be different if I were lying on my death bed in pain.

I haven't watched the documentary.

 

[AHarvey]

I'd like to think that it should be everyone's duty to attempt to stay alive for as long as possible.

Why should it be anyone's duty to stay alive as long as possible?

 

[eatcustard]

Man chooses to die on TV
Shock horror!!!!!!!!1
News, show people who have been shot dead in Libia etc
Some of you need to get your life in to prospective.

 

[Pighardia]

I suppose I'd meant it by implication for any option i.e. they had to be of sound mind when requesting euthanasia initially - if it reached a point where they were no longer of sound mind (e.g. some intervening mental condition such as Alzheimer's) or if they only had reducing periods of lucidity then that shouldn't necessarily invalidate their previous choice. That's one area where it gets really tricky though as picking the period before it is too late may mean people dying far earlier than they need to but equally it's somewhat dubious killing people who are not of sound mind - even if they've previously expressed such a wish.

It is far too much of a grey area for me. I have worked in a care home before with people with Altzheimers/dementia and some of them can't remember what happened a few hours before or get confused over everyday things that they were able to do earlier that same day. I can't imagine explaining to someone with Altzheimers that has lost their mental capacity that they have to be 'put down' because they previously wished it. At the very least you would probably meet great resistance in most cases who can't understand what is happening, and then it would just get horrific.

Also i have worked with patients who suffer from Altzheimers who haven not been of sound mind who have lived a relatively good life, "in their own world, but happy there" and completely painless.
but as has been said before, i'm not sure that Altzheimers is really the best example in this instance.

 

[krooton]

I'd like to think that it should be everyone's duty to attempt to stay alive for as long as possible.

So people in the army/police force/fire service who risk their lives for others aren't doing their duty?

 

[z0mbi3]

Is anyone watching the debate about this on Newsnight? There's a bishop on there who has raised an interesting point along these lines, that the opposite side of the documentary, tracking somebody who had chosen not to die, should be shown in another show.

With regars to alzheimers, they've done this before. Some lady and her husband. He was the one with the disease and he was in a right state. If I remember correctly people complained then too.

 

[Burnsy2023]

My thoughts on this are quite simple. Any person should have the absolute right (as long as they are of sound mind) to choose their destiny. If their quality of life is far below what they want why shouldn't they be able to dictate the circumstances around their death.

If I am in constant pain, I can't enjoy any of my hobbies and am bead bound 24 hours a day eating food through a straw I would want the ability to say enough is enough. I wouldn't be able to do it myself, but I would want a way to die in a dignified and controlled way. After all, what do I have to live for? My condition may only get worse and so would my quality of life. Why should anyone have the power to say "no you can't have any control over your life and you must stay in pain"?

I think the vast majority of people support this. The problem is, they feel legalising would be a slippery slope and that the potential abuse would be at too much of a cost. Surely this is just a discussion about how (or whether) we can prevent abuse, rather than the root decision of whether people should be allowed to choose to die?

 

[spudbynight]

For what reason may I ask? I think both sides should be shown and then it is up to the individual to decide which side to sit on.

The BBC is supposed to be impartial. If they are going to show a programme like that then they are supposed to show both sides of the argument.

 

[Vonhelmet]

With regars to alzheimers, they've done this before. Some lady and her husband. He was the one with the disease and he was in a right state. If I remember correctly people complained then too.

A guy I knew at a church I went to started with Alzheimer's. It was incredible. He totally lost his grip on things. He'd tell the same stories over and over and over and would ramble endlessly. More worryingly, he'd leave the house and go walking for hours on end, and his wife would have to send people out looking for him.

He's in a home now. He can't look after himself. He hardly ever even recognises his wife any more.

It's astounding what it does to people. I am terrified that one of my parents will go down with it. I don't know what I'd do in that situation.

 

[Cosimo]

So people in the army/police force/fire service who risk their lives for others aren't doing their duty?

Of course they are.

 

[Sunbed]

Why should it be anyone's duty to stay alive as long as possible?

I just think it's right thing to do - to survive as long as possible, even when facing death. It should always be a docters duty to keep someone alive. I don't think death should be a logical choice. Basically just see Britboys examples as to why I disagree with assisted suicide.

"Isn't it about time you popped your clogs yet nana?"

So people in the army/police force/fire service who risk their lives for others aren't doing their duty?

This is a different argument. I didn't mean that, sorry if unclear.