Assisted Dying

[Lady Murasaki]

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.

They being the lawmakers.

There is no foolproof method that is good enough to legalise it, hence it was turned down again today.

Painless death? What makes you think that it's painless?

No, there's too much scope for people to take advantage if the law changed.

I respect your views on this, I really do.

But I still fully support a terminally-ill person's right to make an informed choice on how they should die, provided that all legal criteria is met, of course.

Morphine eases pain. Strictly-supervised, medically-administered morphine can make the pain go away for ever. I believe that would be a blessed release for Noel Conway and many like him.

I respect your views too.
But I think there's more to this than meets the eye.
Assisted dying means a society that condones suicide when things get too difficult.
That has all sorts of ramifications.

[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.

Jeez....*gives up*

Don't be stupid, it's a discussion, that you started, are we all supposed to agree with you?

Hardly

Just felt your wording was a little crass, tbh. And stupid.

That's fine. Just don't "give up"

[Vam]

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.

They being the lawmakers.

There is no foolproof method that is good enough to legalise it, hence it was turned down again today.

Painless death? What makes you think that it's painless?

No, there's too much scope for people to take advantage if the law changed.

I respect your views on this, I really do.

But I still fully support a terminally-ill person's right to make an informed choice on how they should die, provided that all legal criteria is met, of course.

Morphine eases pain. Strictly-supervised, medically-administered morphine can make the pain go away for ever. I believe that would be a blessed release for Noel Conway and many like him.

I respect your views too.
But I think there's more to this than meets the eye.
Assisted dying means a society that condones suicide when things get too difficult.
That has all sorts of ramifications.

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward.

[Lady Murasaki]

If someone is willing to help then that is their choice. I think I would be willing to help those I care for.

It would be unfair of them to ask you to. Or are you deciding for them?

I wouldn't think of it as unfair anymore than I thought it unfair to be asked to hold a relative stranger during their dying moments. I won't pretend that I didn't find it emotionally challenging but I now consider it to be a privilege and something I look back on as something special.

I certainly wouldn't be deciding for them - it's not my call.

I can't fathom it. I can understand not wanting to see suffering but I don't know how people can say so easily they would do it.

[Lady Murasaki]

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward

It's far from being clean cut which is what I'm trying to highlight, so I appreciate you seeing that.

I know this will sound crass to you because you've made your minds up that assisted dying is the saintly thing to do but...who said life (or death) was meant to be easy?

[Rolluplostinspace]

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward

It's far from being clean cut which is what I'm trying to highlight, so I appreciate you seeing that.

I know this will sound crass to you because you've made your minds up that assisted dying is the saintly thing to do but...who said life (or death) was meant to be easy?

But you wouldn't say that looking down on an animal that was seriously suffering and couldn't be helped.

[McAz]

If someone is willing to help then that is their choice. I think I would be willing to help those I care for.

It would be unfair of them to ask you to. Or are you deciding for them?

I wouldn't think of it as unfair anymore than I thought it unfair to be asked to hold a relative stranger during their dying moments. I won't pretend that I didn't find it emotionally challenging but I now consider it to be a privilege and something I look back on as something special.

I certainly wouldn't be deciding for them - it's not my call.

I can't fathom it. I can understand not wanting to see suffering but I don't know how people can say so easily they would do it.

I didn't say easily. When it fell to me to reach out or not I was scared and my first instinct was to walk away - and that was simply to be a friend to someone who was dying, not assist in their death. I once shared your view on assisted dying but that experience changed the balance for me in favour.

[Lady Murasaki]

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward

It's far from being clean cut which is what I'm trying to highlight, so I appreciate you seeing that.

I know this will sound crass to you because you've made your minds up that assisted dying is the saintly thing to do but...who said life (or death) was meant to be easy?

But you wouldn't say that looking down on an animal that was seriously suffering and couldn't be helped.

You can't compare them.

[Lady Murasaki]

If someone is willing to help then that is their choice. I think I would be willing to help those I care for.

It would be unfair of them to ask you to. Or are you deciding for them?

I wouldn't think of it as unfair anymore than I thought it unfair to be asked to hold a relative stranger during their dying moments. I won't pretend that I didn't find it emotionally challenging but I now consider it to be a privilege and something I look back on as something special.

I certainly wouldn't be deciding for them - it's not my call.

I can't fathom it. I can understand not wanting to see suffering but I don't know how people can say so easily they would do it.

I didn't say easily. When it fell to me to reach out or not I was scared and my first instinct was to walk away - and that was simply to be a friend to someone who was dying, not assist in their death. I once shared your view on assisted dying but that experience changed the balance for me in favour.

But do you see the pitfalls if it was enshrined in law?

[Vam]

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward

It's far from being clean cut which is what I'm trying to highlight, so I appreciate you seeing that.

I know this will sound crass to you because you've made your minds up that assisted dying is the saintly thing to do but...who said life (or death) was meant to be easy?

In some very particular cases, with all criteria met, I'd prefer to use the word 'humane' rather than 'saintly' when applied to assisted dying.

BIB...sure, life can be a bitch and far from easy sometimes. But who said death has to be the same, if there's an easier (& legal) alternative available?

Apologies to all for banging on a lot in this thread today, btw But for reasons I'd rather not go into, cases like Noel Conway's really do tug at my heartstrings.

[McAz]

I can't fathom it. I can understand not wanting to see suffering but I don't know how people can say so easily they would do it.

I didn't say easily. When it fell to me to reach out or not I was scared and my first instinct was to walk away - and that was simply to be a friend to someone who was dying, not assist in their death. I once shared your view on assisted dying but that experience changed the balance for me in favour.

But do you see the pitfalls if it was enshrined in law?

If asked I would have helped and I would want immunity from prosecution. I cannot be dispassionate or objective on this one, I understand the pitfalls but I have also seen the suffering - on balance I must choose mercy despite the risks.

[Guest]

Sure. As you and Rolly have said, it's far from clean-cut! Any proposed review of existing legislation would be fraught with potential problems - not least, possible abuse of the system.

But how can maintaining the status quo be of any help in utterly hopeless terminal cases like the one in the News today? How can his despair and pain be made a little easier to bear in the short time he has left?

Maybe a review of palliative care might be a way forward

It's far from being clean cut which is what I'm trying to highlight, so I appreciate you seeing that.

I know this will sound crass to you because you've made your minds up that assisted dying is the saintly thing to do but...who said life (or death) was meant to be easy?

But you wouldn't say that looking down on an animal that was seriously suffering and couldn't be helped.

You can't compare them.

They are actually not compared. My father had necrosis, he was decomposing while he was dying of multiple myeloma. If you owned a pet in that condition you would be in jail. It's not allowed. But it's allowed to let it happen to a human being, father, grandad. The sooner assisted dying is legislated for in this country the better. People like you are complicit in this cruelty and tragedy. I hope you feel so good about your highly moral self.

[Vam]

You can't compare them.

They are actually not compared. My father had necrosis, he was decomposing while he was dying of multiple myeloma. If you owned a pet in that condition you would be in jail. It's not allowed. But it's allowed to let it happen to a human being, father, grandad. The sooner assisted dying is legislated for in this country the better. People like you are complicit in this cruelty and tragedy. I hope you feel so good about your highly moral self.

I can't not comment on your post, because the emotion running through it is clear to see.

I wouldn't wish what your father suffered on anyone, and I'm sorry to see he had no other choice available to him.

[Guest]

You can't compare them.

They are actually not compared. My father had necrosis, he was decomposing while he was dying of multiple myeloma. If you owned a pet in that condition you would be in jail. It's not allowed. But it's allowed to let it happen to a human being, father, grandad. The sooner assisted dying is legislated for in this country the better. People like you are complicit in this cruelty and tragedy. I hope you feel so good about your highly moral self.

I can't not comment on your post, because the emotion running through it is clear to see.

I wouldn't wish what your father suffered on anyone, and I'm sorry to see he had no other choice available to him.

Thank you. When somebody becomes a living skeleton it is time to draw a line.

[NastyNickers]

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.

They being the lawmakers.

There is no foolproof method that is good enough to legalise it, hence it was turned down again today.

Painless death? What makes you think that it's painless?

No, there's too much scope for people to take advantage if the law changed.

I respect your views on this, I really do.

But I still fully support a terminally-ill person's right to make an informed choice on how they should die, provided that all legal criteria is met, of course.

Morphine eases pain. Strictly-supervised, medically-administered morphine can make the pain go away for ever. I believe that would be a blessed release for Noel Conway and many like him.

I respect your views too.
But I think there's more to this than meets the eye.
Assisted dying means a society that condones suicide when things get too difficult.
That has all sorts of ramifications.

No. No it doesn't. And it's a hell of a lot more than things just getting too difficult.

In reference to the earlier suggestions that if someone wanted to kill themselves they would find a way; I disagree there also. There's a world of difference between say the way Dignitas go about assisted dying and DIY assisted dying. If I was at the end of a cancer battle, I was bed bound, in and out of consciousnesses, and slowly and painfully fading away I'd choose assisted if it was available to me. I'd choose it because it would be easier for me, it would spare my family the horrendous final trauma of waiting for me to go, and it would stop me being a money drain whilst I barely cling to a life I no longer wanted.
I wouldn't choose DIY suicide because I would have to go sooner than I wanted if I wanted to do it myself without implicating anyone else. I wouldn't be able to ensure it was calm and peaceful and surrounded by loved ones. It would have to be sneaky and probably quite lonely.