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 you actually watched the documentary, they were invited along to the proceedings during the programme, thus no previous coercion from the documentary. Surely it would be more beneficial for the documentary to have shown the other side of it to, them going their with the intent to do said act but choosing not to.

They probably didn't have anyone to choose from.

On arrival in Switzerland after all the hassle and hoops they've had to jump through,.. most weak, terminally ill people, will feel obliged to see it through ..
 
Giving him water at that point could have done considerably more harm than good, as someone pointed out earlier. Diluting the poison or stopping it's effects short could have instead left him with permanent brain damage.

Which would have been against his wishes, as he wanted to die, not put in to a vegetative state.
 
So let me get this straight .,. now you're saying that beyond a certain point .. when you're still alive, you're no longer 'allowed' to recieve medication to attempt to keep living? Even if that medication is a simple glass of water?

You're not allowed to change your mind any more? Is that the gig?

I can't tell if you're just trolling or not. I assume he asked for water because he was thirsty (as a result of the drugs he had taken) not because he wanted medical intervention. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
 
So let me get this straight .,. now you're saying that beyond a certain point .. when you're still alive, you're no longer 'allowed' to recieve medication to attempt to keep living? Even if that medication is a simple glass of water?

You're not allowed to change your mind any more? Is that the gig?

I haven't watched it yet. But it doesn't sound like he changed his mind at all. He wasn't begging for life or medical care. Just water due to the side effects.
 
They probably didn't have anyone to choose from.

On arrival in Switzerland after all the hassle and hoops they've had to jump through,.. most weak, terminally ill people, will feel obliged to see it through ..

It's comforting to know that you'll never win any arguments of actual substance and consequence with this sort of reasoning.
 
A few points

- I'm not sure how someone 'giving up entirely' is being described as 'brave' by people here. er, no it's not. it's the least brave option. How is this giving up suddenly becoming 'brave'. Its already turning into the HONOURABLE option. If legal - want to keep living? that's the preserve of the weak. All of a sudden, officially, thats the 'undignified' option.

- What about children that are born with the same illness and will always have this massive pain (for the estimated 10 years they will live), and will never be able to speak? Presumably their parents will be able to demand people force the baby to swallow poison? (Or do babies have to suffer where adults do not? Fantastic ... :/ )

I personally, if this was implicated would assume that the option will still be there for adequate medical and financial support to be there for those wishing to live until the very last moment. I get the idea that you believe that if this was made law, the alternatives would be taken away. How you can possibly say someone choosing to end their own life is not brave, I do not know. Or wish to try to comprehend they have made a conscious decision about the remainder of their life, I for one respect them for doing so.
 
Giving him water at that point could have done considerably more harm than good.

Not giving him water = he is definately dead

Giving him water = maybe he is not dead

He was begging for water.

'Giving him water could have done considerably more harm than good'

1 word ..


?!?!?! WHAT !??!?



I ask again .. after he swallowed the poison but was alive -- did he forfeit his right to change his mind or not? As they acted as if he had .. yet you are saying people should be able to change their mind at any point. Which is it?
 
I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to choose who lives or dies. Life isn't something which you can check out from if you don't like it.

I don't agree with suicide regardless of whether someone else helps you and regardless of what other factors there are. In the same way I don't agree with any other form of murder.

It saddens me greatly that as a society we have now reached a stage where human life is being viewed as disposable.

But by saying people cannot make that choice for themselves, are you not making the choice for them. By saying you can't make the choice and we will keep you alive if needs be.
 
Not giving him water = he is definately dead

Giving him water = maybe he is not dead

He was begging for water.

'Giving him water could have done considerably more harm than good'

1 word ..


?!?!?! WHAT !??!?



I ask again .. after he swallowed the poison but was alive -- did he forfeit his right to change his mind or not? As they acted as if he had ..

I like how you cut off my quote to miss out the part about serious brain damage. Good work.
 
Not giving him water = he is definately dead

Giving him water = maybe he is not dead

He was begging for water.

'Giving him water could have done considerably more harm than good'

1 word ..


?!?!?! WHAT !??!?

He wanted to die. He made that VERY, VERY clear. He was NOT begging for water. He asked for it. Dying IMO is less harm that being a vegetable. That's the point of this thread.
 
Not giving him water = he is definately dead

Giving him water = maybe he is not dead

He was begging for water.

'Giving him water could have done considerably more harm than good'

1 word ..


?!?!?! WHAT !??!?



I ask again .. after he swallowed the poison but was alive -- did he forfeit his right to change his mind or not? As they acted as if he had ..

He wanted to die, therefore:

Giving him water = him living, but with brain damage = not what he wanted = bad.

Not giving him water = him dying = what he wanted = good.
 
I ask again .. after he swallowed the poison but was alive -- did he forfeit his right to change his mind or not? As they acted as if he had .. yet you are saying people should be able to change their mind at any point. Which is it?

He was past the point of no return. Water would most likely have just made his death more painful, not saved him.
 
Totally agree - bad taste IMO.

Whether you agree with it or not it just wasn't needed to be shown. The fact that the chap was from where I live just made it harder in a way as we have such good care locally as well.

Why should it not have been shown? It was at a sensible time where the younger generation wouldn't have been watching the TV, we show the beginning and centre of life on TV why not the end?
 
I can't tell if you're just trolling or not. I assume he asked for water because he was thirsty (as a result of the drugs he had taken) not because he wanted medical intervention. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Yes, Terry did an interview this morning about it.

His body totld his mind he wanted to survive and the best way of doing that was water, and lots of it, to dilute the poison. His mind said 'I want water' despite him being told of this side effect in advance. When he was asking for water, every single part of that man was after the best way to CONTINUE SURVIVING.

The people in the room effectively said 'nope .. because of what you said earlier. Your option to change your mind has now gone, despite you still being alive'.
 
He was past the point of no return. Water would most likely have just made his death more painful, not saved him.

Er, people choose to have surgery when the chance of survival is < 50% all the time.

'Medication probably wouldn't work so let's not bother giving it him despite the fact he's begging for it' ... doesn't fly for a second ..
 
Back
Top Bottom