Re: A Duty To Die?
 

i know he cried his eyes out when he got the news :(

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I shed a tear or two with him. It's a quite awful situation to be in and the problem needs to be resolved.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The Courts haven't "bottled" anything - they do not make the Law in this country. Our elected representatives in Parliament do. All the Courts should ever do is make rulings on how the Law as it stands, applies in various situations. If we ever get to a place where the courts, by their decisions, are acting to change the law, then that is the end of democracy in the UK.

The appellants in this case live in what are obviously tragic circumstances, but one or two people do not have the right to overturn the law to suit themselves, no matter how deserving they feel their situation to be.

The only proper route for achieving what they want is the same democratic means that are open to all of us. They can lobby for a change in the law, which would then be brought about by an Act of Parliament.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

by who though ,courts or parliament ,i think the latter as it's a matter that society has to deal with

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Chris while i get what your saying and no the court couldn't change the law they could have said whether they felt a change needs to be considered. I still think it is disgusting in this day and age that we make people live with illness that if it were an animal we would be looked upon badly if we didn't have it put down. As long as it is clear it is the wish of the individual themself and not an agenda by family or friends people should damn well have the right to choose their time to go with dignity.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

His wife said that he has two choices now

1 die naturally

2 starve to death

either way i think it will be an unpleasant death for him .

maybe the way to go is for parliament to make some law change so that each case is dealt with on an individual basis ,could that work ?

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

We have to do something about this issue and not keep putting it off because it is not a popular topic or comfortable topic to discuss or legislate. I have more interest in this as if my deterioration continues at it's current pace in ten years i will basically be completely useless being nothing but a burden on everyone that knows me and thats not how i want to live i should be able when the time comes have the choice to die with dignity. Sorry but life is not absolute in it's importance the quality of that life has to be considered as well because life with no quality is not life.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Good luck with that in a two-party system where no party is going to stick its neck out on what's bound to be seen as a controversial issue.

For the record, here's a link to the latest CF poll we had on this issue.

Clearly, a CF poll cannot be considered representative, but a whopping 94% in favour (when including those who think family members should agree as well) does suggest that a considerable proportion of the UK population feel that assisted suicide should be an option that is available to them.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

If CF polls were representative, David Cameron would have had a convincing majority in 2010 ;)

That said, the perceived shortcomings of our representative democracy are not an excuse for further undermining it via judicial activism. Parliament may not be perfect, but it is better at reflecting the will of the people than any judge.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Hence my proviso. Still, I think the size of the majority is indicative of the wider mood.

I'm not sure if I'd say better. More appropriate perhaps, but not necessarily better.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

My Mother had a stomach disease, she was too weak for an operation & in pain, the Doctors told us she would eventually die. After some consultation, she was taken to a side ward & given Morphine, she saw her family, then I stayed with her until she died. During that time the Morphine machine kicked in more frequently & I am convinced it killed her. It was the right choice to make & I will always be grateful that she passed in peace. I hope that when my time comes my children will do the same.

Given the choice now, while i`m sane, (No skits, please) I would sign my life away rather than live with endless pain, or Dementia, & I would ask my children to support my decision. I never want to be a burden on my family, they mean far too much to me. You play the cards fate deals you, only you should decide when to chuck your hand in.

A Duty to Die? No. If we accept this we would all end up getting a cyanide pill for our retirement.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Quote "SMG I never want to be a burden on my family"


there is the problem what is most likely a well informed and valid choice for you can soon on those not as strong as you be used against them by unscrupulous relatives and or people in white coats to persuade them that they too don't want to be a burden as that is seen to be the norm

no matter what legislation is put in place once you loose the right to challenge why some one died that is what will happen

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That's exactly what I think will happen and once you start something like this its pretty hard to stop, I quite like the way our leaders have washed their hands of this tbh and left it with the courts to decide whether prosecution is in the public interest or not and the leniency they seem to show all genuine defendants, perhaps its a route worth continuing with

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Given recent governments attempts at introducing new laws i am not sure i could trust them to make fair and effective laws governing assisted suicide ,i believe they are the only people who should do it but i fear we would end up with legislation that is full of holes and doesn't do what it should

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722

Mr Nicklinson has now passed away

RIP

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Yes - very sad. I'll never forget the images of him sobbing with despair when he lost his action. RIP.

Maybe losing his painfully protracted legal fight served a more of a purpose than anyone could have thought at the time.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Weird timing.

RIP. Glad he didn't have to wait long.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I friend of mine's grandad had lung cancer in the late 1960's, he was at home slowly dying, and in a great deal of pain and his nans was in a great deal of distress, he was having daily morphine injections.

One the the Dr came in and gave him his injection and said "this should end his suffering" (or words to that effect), shortly after he died.

He belived the Dr help.

The irony is if animals are ill they get put down to stop them suffering, we have to suffer.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Here we had a man, who was sane and rational, who was living a nightmare everyday. It's amazing he stayed sane.

And the state said he was not allowed to end his own life, or have anyone do it for him.

I will be very interested to hear the decision in this case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...him-alive.html

It's now gone to court.

Although the two cases are not strictly the same, I would have thought that the courts would have to advise the hospital to keep him alive.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The court is limited by Parliament I think.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I believe that sort of thing happens many times everyday up and down the country,,it gets to a stage with morphine were the doctors know the likelihood is the dose will kill the patient but in terms of pain control there isn't another option

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Pneumonia, though while I'm not an expert I don't think it's a great leap to suppose the fact he started refusing food and drink after last week's judgement won't have helped.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Yeah, The BBC has confirmed that.

I dunno,i dont want to step on anyones toes here but i think its wrong to try and force someone to stay IF THEY DONT WANT TO!!

I really feel aweful for this poor guy :(

WHY IS SUICIDE FROWNED UPON?? -- I honestly dont know... If someone wants to leave,LET THEM!!


I dunno,alot of things as of late bothering me,i dont wanna say too much on this thread..

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

suicide isn't.......... assisted suicide is and that is what it was all about ,he went to court to get the law to allow a doctor to assist in his death

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Suicide used to be illegal didn't it, iirc there we're harsh penalties if you tried but failed to off oneself

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

It was ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Act_1961

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The new health minister has called the laws on assisted suicide ridiculous, if I was feeling mischievous I'd say it was yet another government initiative to get people of incapacity benefit

http://news.sky.com/story/982464/new...s-right-to-die

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I'd say that Dave has had a rare fit of common sense in his choice of appointment...

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Nope. The comments have been backed away from.

At least have the debate, see what the country thinks, then allow a free vote in Parliament. It's not hard. The Government doesn't always have to be 'for' or 'against' something.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

quite agree ,and aren't ministers supposed to be put in place because of their own views on matters such as health,transport,defence,etc ,so they mirror the governments stance

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

We are long overdue discussing this openly in the UK and i think it is getting to the point where if it doesn't happen more people will just view it as spinelessness on the part of government. You don't have to be in favour to initiate a debate as long as your prepared to go with the majority at the end of the debate. Maybe thats the problem too many are in favour of some form of assissted suicide and this government doesn't want to have to try and legislate for it given the gauranteed objections of numerous religious organisations\groups.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I'd suggest not having the debate, I think we have it just about right at the moment leaving it to the courts to decide, the burden is with the police to prove they stood to/ did it for financial gain or whether its in the public interest to proceed, politicians getting involved usually makes things worse not better

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

What's 'just about right' about people having to go abroad to end their suffering.

We treat animals better than humans in this area, and it's high time we do something about it.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

What's right about having the lonely and depressed ending their suffering as happens in other countries, our judicial system is very lenient towards people in this situation on the whole so why not let them carry on.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That wouldn't be right, and that's not what's happening.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That's what has happened, you and I have even discussed specific cases iirc and imo its what will happen again.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

We treat animals *differently* than humans in this area, because they are animals. I see no necessary read-across from what a vet is allowed to do simply because an animal's owner asks him, to what a doctor is allowed to do.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

As I recall (but I can't find it), you posted a case where it was decided that Euthanasia should be allowed in people who suffer 'unbearable mental anguish' or something to that effect. That's rather different from expecting the lonely and depressed to end their lives, as you appear to be implying. That, patently is not happening.

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

It is indeed different. It is also, in my opinion better. I'd have thought that it was pretty obvious that I was voicing an opinion, rather than making a statement of fact?

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I would have thought it equally obvious that I was disagreeing with your opinion ;)

I also disagree that it is 'better' in any possible sense. Human life and animal life is not equivalent, either legally or morally. The treatment of profoundly sick or untreatable animals is a function of that lesser status.

The treatment of animal life is appropriate to their moral and legal status, as is the treatment of human life in our current system.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

And it is my opinion that the elevated status of the human entitles the human to decide on his own fate, and if he wishes to terminate his life, then, with certain provisos, a qualified medical practitioner should be allowed be allowed to aid said person in doing so in a dignified manner.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That's one awfully short, neat sentence to use to gloss over a broad and extremely complex set of issues...

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Yes it is. And there's a reason for it. It is indeed a complex set of issues, and where you stand on it is going to depend on your moral outlook. The reality is that we could argue over this till the cows come home, and not reach an agreement. What's more neither of us would be wrong, as you can approach the issue from all sorts of philosophical angles, neither of which could be proven to be 'correct'.

That's sort of summed up in you arguing that we can put down animals and not humans as animals are of a lesser status, and me arguing that the elevated status of humans gives them more rights to decide on their own fate. Neither of them is right or wrong. It's highly subjective.

I'm not, for want of a better word, held back by a religious notion of the sanctity of life. From my perspective my life is mine, and it's for me to decide what to do with it, even if that means ending it. And if I were to find myself in a situation where I am not capable or willing to do it myself, I'd want someone else to be able to assist me (with certain safeguards).

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Sadly it is Daniel, looks like it wasn't this thread we discussed it in though, I think the Dutch woman's doctor was called chabot if that helps, can't remember the lonely guys name though but here's another case of dignitas putting down the mentally ill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eign%2BService

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I think many that object to this would have a different opinion were they to be living day in and day out with severe pain with no hope of having it removed. This is a debate where having a condition that causes severe pain and shortens lifespan with the chance of a very undignified end counts for quite a lot because unless you have that you really do not understand how the prospect of being able to terminate your life with dignity appeals. I am not and never would say\support this becoming a daily thing or a matter of course but where there is medical reason for it i believe that people should have the right to choose when it is their time to go.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Well, all I can say is that despite reading Dutch media on a daily basis, I don't recall any controversial cases of euthanasia, which suggests that there is no wide-spread abuse of the system. As for the Dignitas case, it would appear that the Swiss rules have been flouted, which clearly is unacceptable. If that story is true, the I would hope that the guilty party faces a stiff penalty. However, I don't think that an isolated case of abuse should be reason to deprive people of the right of decide their own fate, and I do belief that it is possible to build enough safeguards into the system to ensure that vulnerable people don't fall victim to it.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The thing is the courts rule that assisted suicide is illegal. There isn't a defence that it was the wishes of the individual in question. Even the people who have brought the cases to the high court, who have a clear will to end their life, are not granted it. This is because that is the law, the court doesn't have the scope to go on a case-by-case basis, they must enact the law.

Hence why I think a debate is needed because it's my view that we may need to allow people to end their suffering. This can only be changed by Parliament. Having the debate and if some change is proposed a free-vote would be a good idea.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

And time and again in this thread there are examples of prosecution being deemed not in the public interest or suspended sentence being appropriate, the balance imho is right

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

It was a long time ago now and actually led to a change in Dutch law and whilst you're right abuse isn't widespread now it could be in the future, best not to open that can of worms imo

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-1425973.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Do you want to try and explain that to the likes of Mr. Nicklinson. I'm sure he would have been delighted to learn that it abuse isn't widespread in places where Euthanasia is legal, but we're keeping it illegal just in case it might be abused in the future.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

nice dan very nice, I would've expected better of you. The experts like doctors and police chiefs have been explicit in their warnings on this and I happen to agree with them. The circumstances of individuals don't out weigh what's right for society as a whole imo, no matter how much sympathy you have for their plight.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Erm ok. I see how that might have come across wrong. I apologise. What I meant to put across is that there are real people out there that are suffering in real life. It just strikes me as odd to deny these people what they want, on the off-chance that it might be abused in the future, when there is very little indication that it's being abused at present in countries that have legislated for it.

Surely, it must be possible to come up with a system with sufficient safeguards that will put the minds of those who are concerned about abuse at ease?

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Well if this is the case then we already have circumstances in which we deem it acceptable to allow for assisted suicide. Why not make these enshrined in law so that families don't have the stress and the CPS do not have the difficulty in making calls for what is in the public interest or not. To say 'we might prosecute, we might not' is clearly already messy. It's also clear that many patients don't have confidence in such a system, hence them taking their right to die case to court.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I believe we have that system in place

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...icide-law.html

And my own view has changed over the years from being firmly against assisted suicide to not prosecuting in extreme cases mainly due to some of the stories you read about peoples suffering. What we don't want though and what I fear could happen is mentioned in the last few paragraphs of this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...de-clinic.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

If I understand correctly, that simply means that those who help people travel to Switzerland will not be prosecuted if they don't gain from it. It still remains illegal to perform Euthanasia in the UK, and presumably it will be prosecuted.

The system I have in mind, would be to have medically qualified people (preferably several) should be involved, to judge people's condition and suffering. I'd like to keep the family far away in the decision and actual procedure. Having a panel of GPs involved should also stop cases like the one in the DM (though that should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is the DM).

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I took it to mean all cases, iirc focus in the article was placed on a disabled woman who wanted to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he took her to.Switzerland, here's a slightly better article and if it doesn't include cases in this country I think it probably should.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8536231.stm

I wouldn't be in favour of your system, its to.regulated, personally I don't want this to become so normal committees are set up, if we have this imo it has to be so rare it is news, perhaps Damien is right and it does need to be debated but I just have no faith in our politicians to undertake such an important issue.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The article isn't very clear, but I think the guidelines relate to people helping others to travel abroad only. If not, why did Tony Nicklinson end up starving himself? If those guidelines covered the UK and active help, there would have been no reason for Tony Nicklinson to go to court,

I'm a little surprised you find my system too regulated. Surely, it needs to be properly regulated if you want to avoid abuse?

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Personally I would never want this normalised enough to warrant committees, I think as long as the police investigate sensitively each case it'll be fine.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Terry Pratchett wrote an interesting article (imho) in yesterday's Times (behind a paywall).

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Well, I disagree. I'd like to see it properly legislated for with transparent procedures in place so it it clear for all to see what's happening and what is and is not allowed. Not some grey area where it's unclear in what circumstance people will and will not be prosecuted.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Shocking, the pathway to death

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-family.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Can't think of many things worse than being deaf and blind but a reason to euthanise two otherwise healthy 45 year olds, I don't think so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ble-again.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I would agree with you, but the twins decided to undertake the process.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

No it's not but it was their choice .If that was in this country they would have probably tried to commit suicide ,possibly failed or possibly one died and one lived ,at least there it was in a controlled environment

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Yes and they shouldn't have been given a choice, the unbearable pain clearly isn't aimed at the prospect of never seeing someone again.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I don't know what the restrictions if any are ,can you just rock up to the docs and ask to be put down in Belgium or are there restrictions stipulating the circumstances and conditions when this would be allowed

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The stipulations are that you can make your wishes clear to a doctor and are suffering unbearable pain according to that doctor. Most of the 1133 euthanasia cases in 2011 in Belgium was for patients suffering from terminal cancer.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

They have probably cited "unbearable emotional pain" which to me is not something to be euthanized for

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

They were unable to communicate being both deaf and increasingly blind. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. What's there to live for if you can't communicate.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That's not what these laws should be there for imo and probably not what was intended in the countries that set them up which is why we should have no part in setting it up here.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The law's been looked at by a number of judges judge who have concluded that there is no reason to limit acceptable circumstances to unbearable physical suffering. The initial verdict was, as far as I can tell, appealed precisely with the intent to determine how the law should be interpreted. No attempts were made to legislate against this interpretation of the law, so it would seem the powers that be are content with it.

Personally, I don't see why unbearable emotional suffering (provided there is no or little prospect for improvement, as laid down in the law). The simple fact that it may be easier to imagine intolerable physical suffering does not alter the fact that emotional suffering may be just as intolerable.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

And there we have it, the laws been changed to allow circumstances other than those suffering from the most severe physical pain. It'll be changed again soon to allow children the same rights whose to say where opening this Pandora's box will end.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I think you're being overly dramatic here. Firstly, the law hasn't been changed. Only parliament can do that, and parliament didn't. The law has been interpreted by a judge in an area where it wasn't clear, and parliament hasn't moved to legislate against the new interpretation. In fact, reading more about it, the option of assisted suicide for emotional suffering was floated when the law was discussed in parliament. It was then pretty much decided to pass the law and leave the interpretation of this specific aspect to a judge, so parliament pretty much left the option open. Either way, the opening of this 'Pandora's box' will end where parliament wants it to. At present, the balance seems about right to me.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Already in this thread we have examples of government advisors advocating licencing to "put people down", the mentally ill being assisted and suicide kits through the post so I don't think it melodramatic to suggest if we had such a law it'd be watered down in no time at all.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Mmmm - not being melodramatic, but using the phrase "put people down".

Some cognitive dissonance there....

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

We've had this discussion before, and if I'm not mistaken we concluded that there is very little, if any, evidence of the law being abused as it is. You personally may not agree with what the law allows, but the reality is that there is no widespread abuse, nor is there a lot of watering down. It seems to me that your fears are largely unfounded.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The law in Belgium is changing to include children the law here has changed to regarding prosecution and you can guarantee there will be more changes to come each one shaving another layer of who is eligible as has already happened.

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

Not my phrase but baroness warnocks iirc

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

One in five Dutch people think it ok to put healthy old people down, providing they're a bit tired of life of course... :(

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/u...re-euthanasia/

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

The law we discussed.elsewhere in the thread re euthanising children has now.been passed by the Belgium parliament

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

a certain leader would have been well impressed soon all those disabled / ill people who if they were well would obviously not want to be as they are, can soon, as this law slips be able to be put to rest and not be in pain or a burden to their families and their state

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

A fine example of exactly what we should be trying to avoid imo

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-after-3382668

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Archbishop changes mind on right to die

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...dying-proposal

I don't think I'd have a massive problem with this if we could be certain it wouldn't get changed or ammended but I don't trust our leaders to protect our best interests.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Business is booming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...2008-2012.html

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Not surprising. Health care is such that people are living longer knowing that their illness will kill them eventually. Just a question of suffering and loss of dignity.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Her life, her decision.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

But it shouldn't be up to the state or big business to assist her for profit imo

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Also her decision the manner in which she took her life. She could've killed herself but chose to go to Switzerland and use Dignitas. So long as she was at no point under duress I don't see a problem. Dignitas offered a service, she paid for it and used it.

The state shouldn't be involved in this. Either assisting the suicides or obstructing them and prosecuting those involved.

The right to die at a time a terminally ill person sees fit, in the best possible place they are able to, in the least painful manner is something the state should get out of the way of.

Her case is a little more difficult however her health was fading and she feared losing her independence. It was her choice to end her life at that time, I've seen no-one suggest otherwise, and to die with her faculties and dignity intact.

No-one likes talking about death but it's going to happen to all of us. I find the state forcing people to spend their last months / years in pain and without dignity abhorrent.

It's all about the safeguards; they are tricky but they are doable.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

They're not do able, the safe guards already in place have been abused over and over as referenced in this thread already. The mentally ill killed, the healthy killed, the young killed etc etc etc and speaking of dignity how much dignity is there in having your remains tossed in a lake.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

About as much as laying on a bed unable to move, covered in bed sores, peeing yourself, crapping yourself, Being fed through a tube, drifting in and out of consciousnous.

Yes very dignified, I do hope my loved ones do that for me when the time comes.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Ridiculous last phrase, implying that assisted suicide somehow equates to mistreatment of a corpse.

Firstly I care about dignity for the living more than for the dead. All evidence points to that we won't have any idea what happens to our bodies after death for a really simple reason - we'll be dead. Any care for the body is more about looking after those who are still alive, their feelings, their concerns, and their emotions. The body is an empty shell that looks like someone they used to know but has now passed. It is no more the person who died than a shred of skin from that person is.

There are no perfect safeguards when things are prone to abuse - none. Like pretty much everything else there's a cost:benefit analysis there and the evidence, sorry if I keep using that word, from countries that have legalised assisted euthanasia and have robust safeguards is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I think you're being paranoid and opposing assisted euthanasia for the wrong reasons. If there are amendments that go down the slippery slope of involuntary euthanasia or weaken safeguards then yes, absolutely, those should be opposed.

Merely permitting assisted euthanasia however is humane, compassionate, and will bring comfort to those who are dying, knowing that they can end their lives in the manner they see fit at the time they see fit, rather than lingering on in doubt and pain, gradually losing their faculties until finally their body can no longer sustain them.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

There's no perfect solution to this but forcing people to suffer when they patently don't want to is as absurd as it is cruel. In worrying about potential abuse of any safeguards, some people seem to be more than willing to accept that dreadful reality that many helpless and extremely sick/disabled peope are actually suffering through their conditions and the uncaring and undignified (even abusive) treatment they have to endure.

No it's not a black and white issue but I know which option I would prefer and it isn't years of suffering the pain and misery of a terminal illness whilst either burdening my loved ones or relying on others for my every need.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I'm not being paranoid, here's what a doctor and former supporter says about assisted suicide in Holland and how we'd be foolish to follow their lead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-killing.html

When you read some of the stories in this thread it'd be impossible not to support assisted dying when someone has locked in syndrome or something equally horrible but as the doctor has witnessed the reality is very different in Holland.

The vast majority of doctors here don't support it and less than 20% will participate in it if legalised

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-docto...115724259.html

Oh and the last phrase of my previous post isn't ridiculous, it shows what happens when business is allowed in to something as sensitive as this, rules ignored, corners cut all in the name of profit.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Thousands of dying patients are being let down by poor end-of-life care provision, the organisation that makes final decisions about NHS complaints in England has said.

One example, said the ombudsman, was a patient who had suffered 14 unnecessary and painful attempts to have a drip reinserted during his final hours.

It investigated more than 300 complaints, upholding most of them.

The government said improving end-of-life care was a priority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32797768

All of a sudden assisted suicide doesn't seem so bad :(

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I had not actually read your post before this one, however a comment on that article says what I would have.

The last year of life is a huge proportion of a person's entire lifetime's healthcare bill. It's one of the key places where lack of funding of the NHS will manifest unfortunately.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Mainly due to the high cost of drugs, and supporting palliative care.

My bro-in-law, who was an academic medical researcher, but has worked at various big Pharma companies for the last 20 years, is in discussions with a Pharma company in New England, in it's "Rare Drugs" division - they have one drug which can treat a disease which affects 20 people in a million, which costs $400k per patient per year.

The challenge we, as a country, face, is things that people used to die of are now treatable (a good thing), but often it can be for years at a very high cost, which has a major impact on day to day running costs of hospitals/health care centres - we need to stand back and think about how we can fund this paradigm shift, as long as it is free at the point of access.

I personally think the German model would work better for us as a country, providing the funding required.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

No, it's usually because it can take over ten years to develop, test, and gain regulatory approval, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds, if not over a billion dollars.

http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Pr...it-1.7-billion

Then, they only have 20 years after the patent is filed for exclusivity - generic copies can be made after this time.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

That's what the increase in the State pension is for! Happy saving! :D:erm:

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I'd be inclined to agree. The manner in which the NHS is funded is one no other democratic nation follows, and for good reason.

I think I have a history of preferring single payer insurance with private top-ups and co-pays on here. Brings in more private sector money which is, obviously, a good thing.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

The development costs are massive, Gary, and of the drugs trialled only a fraction actually make it out to the marketplace.

Producing them tends to be pretty cheap, it's the massive investment in research and development the prices have to recoup, and they have to recoup them before the drugs become generic.

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

I've said it through this thread I don't trust the safe guards, I don't trust them not to be watered down and I don't trust politicians to act in our best interests. The evidence from Europe backs up what I've been saying all along. If we could guarantee it'd only be used in the final hour/days/weeks of someone's life when they're in intolerable pain no one here would argue against it but it won't be, Europe has shown us that already. I can see it now as well someone who is very ill goes to court with the best of intentions so they can be assisted and it'll be eroded that way.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------

if we did that then we'd have no drug companies left in the real world

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

Are you for real?
I'm no fan of a lot of what big pharma does but if they spend millions developing a drug, take it through all the trial stages and finally get it to market, and the market is for one in 20 million people, then that drug is going to cost a lot to buy.
Also don't forget that a lot of the drugs they try to develop don't make it to market. Those R&D millions are down the drain. That loss has to be covered by the drugs that do make it to market.
I agree with the 'greed' part of your final statement but 'profit'?......these companies couldn't exist without making a profit.
Numpty :rolleyes:

Re: A Duty To Die?
 

This Baroness should hang her head in shame.

Wether you have dementia or any other serious illness, the NHS should look after you till your demise.

I look at life this way. I have lived on this planet for 63 years, l have paid into the coffers since l started work.

Therefore, l strongly believe that ALL medical care should be made available to help either cure the condition or ease the pain.

Last Friday, a very good friend of mine passed away with bowel cancer and is being cremated on Friday, he decline medical care on similar care BUT he was told that medical care would only give him several more months.
To me if the care is there - then you should have it