It's certainly something worthy of proper discussion. We don't let our pets suffer until they eventually completely give up when we can see they're in agony so it seems strange we wouldn't consider allowing people to choose their way out.
Euthanasia need to be considered in UK?
- Thread starter area51_for_psx
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,670
I’ll never understand how we can make the decision for our pets, but not ourselves or loved ones and that for the most part doctors will try to keep you alive as long as possible regardless of how much you’re suffering. I’ve seen family suffocate to death as they die of lung cancer, it isn’t fun, I’d rather be able to make the decision to end it by that point.
I think more are coming around to the idea, it’s weird it’s so ingrained into our culture not to consider it.
I think more are coming around to the idea, it’s weird it’s so ingrained into our culture not to consider it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2021
- Posts
- 4,258
- Location
- Oxon
I learnt about this as a teenager when my gran tried to kill herself (about age 75). She was miserable, a bit of pain here and there but nothing major, my grandad had already died, she had nothing to look forward to. Because it sounds like depression I'm not sure it would be granted even if euthanasia was legal now, but I know in my heart that the kind thing to do would have been to let her make that choice. She did herself some harm in the attempt, which she would have been spared if there was a painless and legal option. She spent another 20 odd years living a life she didn't want to live until eventually she died.
We can mostly agree that serious illness, such as terminal cancer, is a reasonable basis for making the decision to end your own life. I'm going to add my gran's reason, which is just being old and miserable and deciding you've had enough - it's perfectly legitimate to know that your life isn't going to get any better when you're that age. I would want the choice for myself at that age, and I would want that choice for my mother, who is getting old now and if Parliament doesn't get a move on she won't have that choice either. We put animals down and call it doing the right thing. I can't justify treating our human family members worse than we treat our pet family members.
I agree with the financial and nhs strain angle too. We spend a ton of money buying medicines which keep old people not dead so they survive long enough to buy more medicines. It isn't good for the patient, it isn't good for the taxpayer, it isn't good for everyone else who actually wants nhs treatment, but it's great for big pharma.
To address the "but what if they aren't of sound mind" question. I don't know the answer to that. I'll posit that this question doesn't need to delay euthanasia law. We could still introduce the law for people who are of sound mind with terminal illness or of certain age. Let's get the simple stuff introduced now and improve the law later.
We can mostly agree that serious illness, such as terminal cancer, is a reasonable basis for making the decision to end your own life. I'm going to add my gran's reason, which is just being old and miserable and deciding you've had enough - it's perfectly legitimate to know that your life isn't going to get any better when you're that age. I would want the choice for myself at that age, and I would want that choice for my mother, who is getting old now and if Parliament doesn't get a move on she won't have that choice either. We put animals down and call it doing the right thing. I can't justify treating our human family members worse than we treat our pet family members.
I agree with the financial and nhs strain angle too. We spend a ton of money buying medicines which keep old people not dead so they survive long enough to buy more medicines. It isn't good for the patient, it isn't good for the taxpayer, it isn't good for everyone else who actually wants nhs treatment, but it's great for big pharma.
To address the "but what if they aren't of sound mind" question. I don't know the answer to that. I'll posit that this question doesn't need to delay euthanasia law. We could still introduce the law for people who are of sound mind with terminal illness or of certain age. Let's get the simple stuff introduced now and improve the law later.
Last edited:
Harold Shipman happened without the UK having legal euthanasia, perhaps there would be more oversight if we did.
I'm all for it. I wouldn't drag out the suffering of my cat why should I not be able to do the same for myself or for a loved one if they decided the same?
We're all going to die, we should have the option to decide how we go if we get the opportunity.
E: We already have do not resuscitate me instructions, why not don't keep me doped up in pain and euthanize ones?
Last edited:
However when do you legally draw the line between someone in control of their own end of life experience or that of a beneficiary/legal “guardian” engaging the process.
I think it's basically an ethical question above all else. The way I'd probably set it up is that you have to get a special kind of "warrant" from a judge that lets a doctor carry it out.
The judge would be required to get consent from the patient in question and e.g. next of kin, a doctor who is involved in their treatment, another doctor for an outside opinion as well as input from people close to them who might want to object to it and maybe a legal expert on their will to make sure it's set up in such a way that the euthanasia won't expedite an inheritance unduly.
Then the judge can say yes or no based on all of that evidence.
The judge would be required to get consent from the patient in question and e.g. next of kin, a doctor who is involved in their treatment, another doctor for an outside opinion as well as input from people close to them who might want to object to it and maybe a legal expert on their will to make sure it's set up in such a way that the euthanasia won't expedite an inheritance unduly.
Then the judge can say yes or no based on all of that evidence.
See I'm not sure I can agree with this one.
Sorry I don't know the exact circumstances or know personally, obviously, but on the face of it, your grandma was upset, understandably, but lived another 20 years. Now I appreciate your comments that she didn't want to, and obviously I'm sorry about that.
But how could anyone have known what the future would have held, if say she was able to end her life, she may have instead became happier at some point after and had some more enjoyable years of life.
It's easy to say in hind sight.
Why would you subject a doctor to the mental trauma or possible legal risks (even if legally granted)?
I could agree that an individual who in sound mind could request that they could end their life in a facility with 12 people on the jury to grant or refuse.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,178
- Location
- London, UK
I think at 75 she knows herself. Her life partner is dead, she knows she faces a slow decline in body and likely mind and she was in pain. I can fully understand her POV and think it should be respected. Obviously we shouldn't be dishing out life ending pills willy-nilly and you'd need safeguards in place like having to speak to a psychiatrist but if the person has genuinely had enough its their life, their choice imo.
This would be the only way to go, for medical conditions which would rob people of any quality of life ie cancer, motor neuron disease, chronic multiple sclerosis, dementia etc.
My father died of lung cancer a few years ago but he wanted to die at home. So a hospital bed was put in the house and the family took it in turns to stay with my mum. He wanted to stay for as long as possible to make sure that he had done everything he could have to see that my mum had no worries when he had gone. He did go quickly but the waiting for the family wasn't good. The mother-in-law had vascular dementia and she just kept deteriorating month on month over 7yrs which was not nice to watch, so in that case it would have been down to the wife to decide.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2021
- Posts
- 4,258
- Location
- Oxon
That's all true, it's just a question of who's choice it is. I think it should have been her choice, she was fit to make it, and she did make it. The alternative is telling someone they must continue to live - presumably because you think they should take the chance of life improving - but why does your opinion take priority over theirs when we're talking about their life not yours? If we were talking about a young person I'd agree with you, I've had young friends take their own life and I don't support that, but it's different when you consider the context that when you're really old the chance of your health declining is high and if you're alone and not leaving the house the chance of life improving is low.
Last edited:
Would it really be that much different to the trauma potential for regular palliative care?
This should definitely be an option imo - think Terry Pratchett made the case for it quite well. I would certainly want the option to choose my way out in a dignified way e.g. if I were diagnosed with some form of dementia or painful medical condition there was no chance of recovery from.
Of course getting the right safeguards in place to prevent the system being misused or anyone being made to feel like it was their duty to do it etc is the tricky bit.
Edit: hmm I guess this is a bit different to euthanasia as bright up by OP though - I feel like the patient / subject should give consent in all cases, which may mean they would need to sign a form well in advance of the actual event, which would happen when they had got to a certain stage of pain / loss of mental ability.
Of course getting the right safeguards in place to prevent the system being misused or anyone being made to feel like it was their duty to do it etc is the tricky bit.
Edit: hmm I guess this is a bit different to euthanasia as bright up by OP though - I feel like the patient / subject should give consent in all cases, which may mean they would need to sign a form well in advance of the actual event, which would happen when they had got to a certain stage of pain / loss of mental ability.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
If I were another rogue nurse you'd definitely be getting the needle sonny, need it or not
What a dreadful post.
It's super easy to say that another should end it all, maybe even give encouragement to free up resources with their departure (100% chance this will be a thing, care homes evaporate inheritance money).
But authorising such a thing will be a can of worms since there's a strong tendency for people to lose their faculties along with their bodily functions as they get very old. Someone with dementia may not be able to remember the beginning of a short sentence let alone be considered able to understand making a request to be killed.
Power of attorney might stretch to signing a euthanasia form but now you're requesting that someone else take responsibility for killing you when you seem to be unable to say no anymore.
But authorising such a thing will be a can of worms since there's a strong tendency for people to lose their faculties along with their bodily functions as they get very old. Someone with dementia may not be able to remember the beginning of a short sentence let alone be considered able to understand making a request to be killed.
Power of attorney might stretch to signing a euthanasia form but now you're requesting that someone else take responsibility for killing you when you seem to be unable to say no anymore.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
And then you were born….
I'm guessing a lot of it is to do with the way religion happened, as in killing yourself was seen as 'a sin'
I don't intend to linger when the time comes (hopefully several years away yet) but it would be nice to have a pleasant way out.
Yeah I think this is a big problem for sure. I think it would just have to be the case that somebody who can't consent can't be euthanised. Maybe if they gave prior consent somehow when they were ok that could work around it. I wouldn't be happy with that consent being something you could delegate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
What happens if someone fakes a signature to their consent, unless another new way of doing consenting comes about as proof.
It will 100% be abused.
It will 100% be abused.
Last edited: