Assisted Dying

[Vicky]

I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm pretty sure you'd be held accountable if the person in your care began to starve themselves to death and you did nothing.

likewise i'm no expert, but i'm pretty sure you'd be held accountable if the person in your care asked you to put a pillow over their face and lean down for 10 minutes and you did as they asked.

Yes, but i imagine the courts would show compassion in such cases

.

Ian Gordon was cleared of murdering his wife at court last month after the court heard "Moving" evidence from the couple's daughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-41204218

[Vam]

Sadly, places like Dignitas in Switzerland are beyond the means of many terminal patients - they simply couldn't afford it.

Plus, aside from the expense, imagine the actual logistics and the extreme hassle of getting your incapacitated body, all your medical equipment and meds, and an accompanying carer, all the way over to Switzerland.

I get that existing laws guard against situations in which vulnerable people feel pressure to prematurely end their life, to avoid being a burden on their loved ones.

But, provided rigid safeguarding protocols are in place, to be strictly followed to the letter, I honestly cannot understand why existing legislation can't be changed/amended.

[Vam]

I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm pretty sure you'd be held accountable if the person in your care began to starve themselves to death and you did nothing.

likewise i'm no expert, but i'm pretty sure you'd be held accountable if the person in your care asked you to put a pillow over their face and lean down for 10 minutes and you did as they asked.

Yes, but i imagine the courts would show compassion in such cases

.

Ian Gordon was cleared of murdering his wife at court last month after the court heard "Moving" evidence from the couple's daughter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-41204218

He's still guilty of Culpable Homicide, sadly. Not to mention constantly having to relive the nightmare of what he felt he had to do, to end his wife's suffering.

Each time a case like Noel Conway's is in the news, I'm always reminded of the underlying principle of every healthcare provider's professional life: "First, do no harm".

How can laws which dictate that a dying person's dearest wishes should not be respected, and that they should be left to suffer a lingering, distressing and painful death, be seen as doing "no harm"?

[Rolluplostinspace]

I had my dog put down because she had cancer and was beginning to suffer.
If I'd kept her alive it would have been for me not her ... selfish.

[Rolluplostinspace]

Markey if your wife asks can you be put out of her misery just say yes.

[Vam]

Markey if your wife asks can you be put out of her misery just say yes.

.....Rolly, fricking behave!

[Major]

I agree with assisted dying, I woulda liked to have assisted Jimmy Savile and others.

[rollup fan]

Markey if your wife asks can you be put out of her misery just say yes.

love you

[Rolluplostinspace]

Markey if your wife asks can you be put out of her misery just say yes.

love you

I love you too!

[Lady Murasaki]

Sadly, places like Dignitas in Switzerland are beyond the means of many terminal patients - they simply couldn't afford it.

Plus, aside from the expense, imagine the actual logistics and the extreme hassle of getting your incapacitated body, all your medical equipment and meds, and an accompanying carer, all the way over to Switzerland.

I get that existing laws guard against situations in which vulnerable people feel pressure to prematurely end their life, to avoid being a burden on their loved ones.

But, provided rigid safeguarding protocols are in place, to be strictly followed to the letter, I honestly cannot understand why existing legislation can't be changed/amended.

Because they don't believe the BIB is possible. There is grave concern that a change in law would encourage forced euthanasia.

[Foxy]

I'm certainly pro assisted dying providing it's tightly controlled. Allowing terminally ill people to suffer when they want to die is what is criminal.

I've been looking for an article, I couldn't search for it because I couldn't remember what it was called but I've found it, it's called the Doctrine of Double Effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introductio ... fect.shtml

It's a great one that doctors can and do use if a patient is in intense pain.

Sadly, debilitating illnesses like Motor Neurone Disease or advanced Parkinsons are as distressing, arguably more so, yet the case for DDE cannot be argued because there is no physical pain.

[McAz]

After seeing someone through to their death from lung cancer I entirely support assisted dying. I sincerely hope the choice is there when it is my time.

[Lady Murasaki]

After seeing someone through to their death from lung cancer I entirely support assisted dying. I sincerely hope the choice is there when it is my time.

The choice is there for whoever wants to do it, unless they can't move.

[McAz]

After seeing someone through to their death from lung cancer I entirely support assisted dying. I sincerely hope the choice is there when it is my time.

The choice is there for whoever wants to do it, unless they can't move.

Do you mean suicide? If so, how is that assisted? And how terrible for those who cannot move.

[Vam]

Sadly, places like Dignitas in Switzerland are beyond the means of many terminal patients - they simply couldn't afford it.

Plus, aside from the expense, imagine the actual logistics and the extreme hassle of getting your incapacitated body, all your medical equipment and meds, and an accompanying carer, all the way over to Switzerland.

I get that existing laws guard against situations in which vulnerable people feel pressure to prematurely end their life, to avoid being a burden on their loved ones.

But, provided rigid safeguarding protocols are in place, to be strictly followed to the letter, I honestly cannot understand why existing legislation can't be changed/amended.

Because they don't believe the BIB is possible. There is grave concern that a change in law would encourage forced euthanasia.

I'm sorry, but who do you mean by "they"?

Couldn't foolproof measures be taken to eliminate the grave concern you refer to? For example, let's hypothesise a case where the prognosis is incontrovertibly 'terminal' - that is, six months or less life expectancy - and the patient is deemed to be of sound mind. There should of course be mandatory consultation with 2 or more court-accredited doctors who are prepared to sign off on the prognosis, plus court-ordered, in-depth questioning of family, carers and anyone else involved, to ensure beyond doubt that the patient isn't under any pressure to prematurely end his/her life.

Surely all of that would be preferable to a law that removes a patient's reasonable request for a right to die painlessly, peacefully and with dignity.

Current legislation poses the risk of people just taking matters into their own hands, out of sheer desperation, which could very possibly result in botched suicide attempts.