Plucking a figure from the air, 99% of people might either die suddenly without intervention or want to cling onto life for as long as possible. Why would that need to change?
But is it worth going through the legal difficulty of all this for 1%?
I sincerely doubt that 99% of people in this country die suddenly or want to cling on to life as long as possible even when they are dying a long painful lingering death. I suspect that the proportion of people who would take the quick painless route out when they become terminally ill and no longer have any quality of life would be far higher than just 1%.
The media don't draw attention to all the people in hospices dying slowly over a period of weeks on morphine syringe drivers after months of going downhill at home. Too depressing for their viewers.
In this country, if someone is in a persistent vegetative state with a hopeless prognosis then after a certain time period medics can legally withdraw their saline drip and feeding tube so that they die of dehydration and starvation over several days. If you killed a dog that way you would be sent to prison for 6 months, but weirdly it's seen as fine for killing people!
And my worry, would always be, to what extent are relatives influenced by the Will? I have certainly seen cases where life support has been turned off and the partner went home and celebrated!
A robust legal framework would have to be designed for voluntary euthanasia to safeguard the rights of vulnerable people. Everyone should also be required to make a formal statement while they are
compos mentis to say what they would want done to them if they were in a coma with no chance of recovery, or they developed severe dementia etc.
But I don't see legalised voluntary euthanasia happening in England without reform of our archaic political system first. We have Bishops still sitting in the House of Lords who would always seek to block this sort of legislation.
www.theguardian.com
