Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35780582)

This is what we want here? Struck of doctors sending depressed non terminally ill people to a clinic that loots the deads valuables and is happy to let people die in cars if there are no rooms available. Those safeguards they have in place are looking hollow which was my fear all along.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35797609)

*Sigh*





I could understand if there were concerns about safeguards, in which case the obvious response would seem to be to table amendments to remedy the issues, however I'm approaching it from a logical point of view which is something our elected representatives appear to struggle with.

Usual BS from the SNP I see.



Indeed. Because few things say life and dignity quite like forcing a terminally ill person to spend their last months in agony enjoying the dignity of their body breaking down, right?

It's astounding. We euthanise animals even though we have advanced veterinary medicine as their quality of life becomes severely impaired, we consider this 'humane', however despite the majority of the population supporting it our elected representatives refuse to extend this to human beings. Death isn't a pleasant thought but it's going to happen to all of us, and whether we like it or not some of us will be unfortunate enough to know that we are going to die imminently, and may suffer horribly in the interim as our bodies fail us. At some point many of the terminal ill stop living even though they're still breathing and are simply dying, and for some each day will become increasingly wearisome. If it's clear there's no chance of recovery, and continuing to breathe is prolonging torment (it's a stretch to call it 'living') there should be a choice.

Base emotion, alongside some religious fervour, has managed to override humanity :(

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:33 ----------



No it isn't, which is why it wasn't what was on the table. 2 doctors both of whom are not struck off and a High Court judge's agreement required. Not that it made any difference of course.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35797683)

All I see here is the boomer generation once again agitating for what they want, when they want it. And, for once, I see legislators standing up for the benefit of wider society as being more important than the unfettered free choice of an individual.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35797634)

Was that what the Swiss were expecting when they legalised it then, people left to die in cars whilst their valuables are looted, all under the observation of struck of doctors to boot, their existing laws watered down so not just the terminally ill can benefit but those who are simply a bit tired can to and if it's not what they were expecting how long before the same happens here, saying a high court judge is involved so all will be fine isn't what it seems either, from what I've heard they will be there as a tidying up exercise for the paperwork and none of that sounds very humane to me either

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35797735)

Surveys of the public over a reasonable period seem to disagree.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35797746)

If that was the only criterion, we'd still be sending people to the gallows.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35797735)

You presumably mean as hasn't happened with legalised abortion in the 48 years since the Abortion Act of 1967 was passed - conditions actually being made more strict by a change from a limit of 28 weeks to 24?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35797815)

On the contrary conditions now mean babies can survive at 24 weeks and earlier, that's the reason for the law change. Seems like a bit of a straw man to try and include that legislation into the argument whilst across the channel in Holland and a few miles further Switzerland the laws and the safe guards for actual relevant right to die are being ignored.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...o-survive.html

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35797841)

A controversial UK law that has not had safeguards loosened, but instead has had them strengthened in response to the evidence, seems a perfectly reasonable comparison to me. Far more reasonable than mistakes made in other countries which you would hope we would learn from rather than emulate.

It's all academic anyway. A few groups, some with long and not especially distinguished histories of wanting to control how the rest of the country lives, told the MPs to jump and they responded asking how high.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35797746)

If that was the only criterion, we'd still be sending people to the gallows.

Originally Posted by rogerdraig (Post 35836987)

i wonder how many mentally ill people could be persuaded to follow suit .

safeguards (sigh)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947497)

The minority of the population who do not want to see
Many go on to take their own lives. A sad fact.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947501)

The point Roger was making is they may well not need to take their own lives, the state will take them for them as has already happened in Holland and Switzerland

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947497)

The majority would say 'And what's wrong with that?'

Better than caging a murderer for a few years only to let them out again amongst the population.

The minority of the population who do not want to see murderers pay the ultimate penalty seem to value the lives of these dreadful people above the lives of the rest of us.

---------- Post added at 08:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 ----------


Many go on to take their own lives. A sad fact.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35947508)

That's because there were too many miscarriages of justice when we did hang murderers.I'd rather spare every one of them to make sure that we don't kill the innocent. Guildford Four and Maguire 7? Remember those cases?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947503)

Same thing really, but more humane than having to jump off a multi-storey car park or jump in a river.

It's not nice, but if it is their choice because they don't think their life is worth living, why make it difficult for them if treatment doesn't help them?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947517)

I don't think it's the same thing at all, if they're suffering from a mental illness how can they make a decision so big whilst in the worst throws of that condition, it's not what was intended in Holland and Switzerland when it happened, that young, otherwise healthy people should die because of depression

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947520)

The point I'm making is that whether you or I like it or not, if a person wants to take their own life then they will do it. Would you have them do this in a dignified way or the way they do it now?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947521)

I'd rather they didn't do it at all but if it came to a choice I don't want the state legislating for it, the state putting down those of unsound judgement or incapable of making legal decisions is nothing short of disgusting imo and to dress is up by saying it's humane doesn't cut any ice with me at all

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947538)

So much for individual rights, then. You would rather have someone pleading to be put out of their misery and being told they have to put up with it because you know better?

You need to ask which is the truly humane approach. We treat dogs better.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35947548)

There are few human rights that are absolute, because when one person exercises their rights, it always has an impact on someone else, in one way or another. Our own rights must always therefore be balanced against those of others. Nobody lives in isolation.

The ‘right’ to die (which does not exist in law, and in my view is extremely hard to define satisfactorily in any ethical system) would impinge on others if it did exist, because it would create a set of legal procedures and, eventually, societal assumptions, that the vast majority of other people would then have to consider, as they reach end-of-life. As the ‘right’ to die does not presently exist, there is no duty, or pressure, to consider it. Simply allowing the possibility of a ‘right’ to die affects everyone else, quite profoundly.

Appeals to ‘individual rights’ of this kind often ultimately fail because what is dressed up as personal freedom is often merely a selfish failure to consider how one’s own choices affect others. Thankfully we still have a legal and legislative system in this country that is willing to take such considerations seriously and not to rush to confer ‘rights’ on everyone at the insistence of a vocal minority.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947574)

So they can't be allowed to die if it's inconvenient to someone else or offends against their right not to be upset!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35947586)

Errr, no, as I’ve already said, they can’t acquire the ‘right’ to die if delivering that right has too much of an impact on other people - that impact including such things as other people feeling obliged or pressured to exercise that ‘right’ themselves when the time comes. There are many other similar examples of how one person exercising their rights has a profound effect on someone else.



Without any thought for the psychological effect your ‘mess’ might have on the attending emergency services or even passers-by. A very neat example of how focusing on ones own rights at the expense of other people can be a profoundly selfish thing to do. Thank you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947538)

So much for individual rights, then. You would rather have someone pleading to be put out of their misery and being told they have to put up with it because you know better?

You need to ask which is the truly humane approach. We treat dogs better.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947602)

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic, people who the state deems mentally unfit to look after themselves in your view should have this "right" and you call it humane, really and imo we don't treat dogs better we treat them worse unless that's your ultimate vision for this right, that someone else decides for you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947637)

If we had such a law, we would obviously have to put in place safeguards, but in cases where a person was suffering chronic mental illness with no prospect of getting better, was clearly miserable with no quality of life and wanted to end it, there seems to be little purpose in prolonging the agony for them.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947638)

These arguments have been made throughout this thread, I don't trust any safeguards not to be watered down over time and it's worth remembering that even in the middle ages we didn't kill the mentally ill, it can't be progress to start now especially when medical advances are being made every day

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35947763)

Obviously if such a law came to pass there would have to be stringent safeguards one of which would be that the person wanting to die was of sound mind and understood what they are asking for for those with serious mental deficiency something like three doctors confirming no quality of life be required. As for a right to die law impacting on others for those wanting to die it already does impact others knowing your loved one wants to die and knowing they may bodge it is a huge weight on others. There are many people suffering from incurable illness that have no way to end their suffering with dignity and certainty and will resort to extreme measures that doesn't always work and that's very damaging for loved one's also.

Life without a half decent quality of life shouldn't be prolonged for the benefit of those with sensibilities and reservations. Can it really be that hard to devise a system that allows suffering to be ended without blatant abuse.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947827)

Correct. It just needs to be thought through. People who are against the idea are just dredging everything they can muster to rubbish the idea, but frankly, people should not have to suffer, and the do-gooders of this world need to get a grip and contemplate for a moment the unnecessary suffering they are causing by standing firmly against the idea.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35947964)

You need to get a grip, do gooders what a trite little saying, rather meaningless unless there's a group of people who are do baders and it doesn't just need thinking through as we already seen in this thread living wills manipulated, suicide kits being sent through the post, people going to dignitas fit and healthy, just feeling a bit old and tired, dignitas using doctors who have been struck of, dignitas ignoring patients distressed emotional states or mental health conditions, otherwise healthy blind people being eutanised, campaigners protesting that current legislation was being interpreted to liberally, suicide workshops being tried to set up, people being euthanized because they're lonely, police chiefs and doctors warning that they fear this will become a way of getting rid of people who are a burden and thats just of the top of my head, I'd suggest none of that is humane or right and can't be sorted by having a bit of a think about it, legislation in Holland and Belgium is already being routinely circumvented or manipulated.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35947976)

Which is why I said it would have to be properly thought through and regulated. There are problems with every piece of legislation. Nothing would get done if everyone just gave up at the whiff of a problem.

You may believe that watching people suffer cruel and painful deaths when a simple way of relieving their suffering is available is ok, but I do not.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948058)

What about the people who aren't suffering cruel and painful deaths, the blind people, those who feel a bit tired, the otherwise healthy but old and the rest who have been euthanized, you don't feel there were regulations in place in Holland, Belgium or Switzerland to stop these people dying, well guess what there are and they're still dead and I don't think describing them as a legislative problem is good enough and it's not like most other legislation that can be dropped or changed at the drop of a hat, it's effects can't be rolled back and them brought back to life.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948075)

The examples you have given trivialise the debate. We're not talking about blind people and those who feel a bit tired!!

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948098)

Yes that's exactly who we are talking about, you do realise those people were alive don't you and those are the reasons given for their deaths, I don't find it trivial, I find it disgusting and worrying in equal measures but I'm sure you probably think it humane

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948118)

It’s trivial because no-one is arguing that they should be granted euthanasia.

“Oh, darling, I’m feeling bushed. I think I’ll go down to the local abattoir and end it all.”

What a ridiculous argument!

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948167)

It's not an argument, it's already happened

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948232)

Well, that's not what I am talking about at all. I am talking mainly about people with terminal illnesses and in a lot of pain. One would have to be pretty uncaring to tell them they have to continue to suffer until the bitter end because you have 'principles' or the right not to be inconvenienced.

I clarified earlier on that euthanasia will have to be properly regulated. I don't think that a person who is feeling tired would exactly qualify under a properly regulated regime, do you?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948254)

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view what you or I for that matter say doesn't become legislation, I'm sure the Dutch, Belgium and Swiss thought through their legislation and came up with something they thought would be of a great help to their society but I'm also sure they didn't expect the blind and tired I mentioned earlier to take advantage of their new laws but they did all the same and now they're dead.

I've given some examples of people earlier in the thread who have locked in syndrome and the like, they are truly tragic stories and you can't help but feel sympathy for them and I can't argue that for them this is the best option but at the same time you can't ignore what's gone on in other countries and how the rules have been manipulated or flouted nor can you ignore what we are like as a society in this country, I agree with the police chief who said if we had these laws here it'd become a way of removing a burden or gaining a legacy

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948271)

So you learn from those mistakes. Honestly, it's not rocket science! As I said, it would need to be properly regulated.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948277)

You keep saying that like it's gospel, do you really think the Dutch, Belgium's and Swiss don't properly regulate or can't they cope with rocket science in your opinion

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948305)

Well clearly, if they are allowing the termination of life on the basis that someone is tired, I think I am entitled to point out that we most certainly could do better than that!

And you tell me to get a grip! What is your definition of a problem? Honestly!

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948382)

So we leave it in the hands of doctors none of which would ever allow euthanasia for tiredness or being blind and to be honest if systems abroad have allowed people that were tired to use euthanasia then clearly their system is lousy and not fit for purpose. Just because it hasn't worked well in other countries shouldn't mean we don't try and find an acceptable solution for those in appalling positions who continue to suffer with no chance of a decent quality of life. No system will ever be 100% free of abuse but that's not a good enough reason to not even try and strict criminal penalties for those who do abuse the system will make that type of person think twice.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948404)

What's with this "johnny foreigner" crap, it cannot be beyond us to implement a system that sees human beings treated as humanely as animals and as someone whose had to watch family and friends suffer long beyond there being a point we need to have a legal means to end suffering.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948404)

What's with this "johnny foreigner" crap, it cannot be beyond us to implement a system that sees human beings treated as humanely as animals and as someone whose had to watch family and friends suffer long beyond there being a point we need to have a legal means to end suffering.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948685)

Euthanasia should only be considered when someone is terminal or has a condition that drastically reduces quality of life to near zero that's it. Any system that allows tired people and blind people to make use of euthanasia is broken and unfit for purpose I'm not sure how anyone could think we would implement a system that lax. Make it a requirement that three doctors need to agree with any patients request for a termination of life hell have one be a psychiatrist who'd be able to better gauge bad reasoning on the part of the patient. It is not impossible to create a system that could work as intended and allow people a dignified end to their lives.

Life is life is not a good enough argument to oppose a euthanasia system life without quality of life is not worth it and keeps people in limbo sometimes for years along with their family dragging out the suffering and damage that can be caused.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948688)

I believe the three doctor system is used in Holland, it might not be but think it is, here's a case from there, it's tragic and I can only hope her abusers suffer horribly for this, worryingly though a 2nd opinion might mean she'd still be alive and improving

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uncurable.html

I've never argued life is life btw, quite the opposite, some of the examples I've highlighted in this thread a're truely heart breaking but for everyone of them there's another from someone relatively healthy and they're not always from abroad either, there was a nasty tale from this country where a young woman abused the living will system to kill herself whilst medical staff could do nothing but watch.

We haven't done enough with improving palliative care to even consider this yet imo and that will be something good that comes out of this whole debate, it can't help but improve palliative care no matter what road we eventually go down.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948696)

Well, you've quoted some pretty ridiculous examples of how your 'Johnny Foreigner' people can get it so badly wrong.

We Brits are better than that! Proper legislative scrutiny would ensure that the likes of such malpractice would not occur without murder charges swiftly following. If necessary, it may be necessary to have a judge's ruling.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35948706)

We weren't very swift about Harold Shipman, who gave about 250 an 'early death' before we caught up with him.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948731)

Yes, but he did that unlawfully. We are talking here about making euthanasia legal in certain well defined circumstances.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35948776)

Getting a bit bored waiting for you to set out the well defined circumstances, or even the proper regulation, that you keep appealing to. You haven’t actually made a case for euthanasia, all you’ve done is said - repeatedly - how you agree with it. Well so what, I agree with free food for everyone but that would be a pointless position to take in a debate about world hunger, unless I was also able to show how it might be achieved.

Go on, knock yourself out, advance the argument, even just a little bit...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948786)

I don't know what you are on about, Chris, to be honest. It's not up to me to set out the legislation! The principle would be that the person has a terminal illness and suffering intense pain, providing no real quality of life. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this? I just hope that you never have to face this position personally, but this might be the only thing that would open your eyes to what we are speaking about.

Fortunately, doctors do understand and step up the morphine to bring it about anyway. No doubt, you are appalled.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35948870)

I don't know. I think making sure the patient is based on Oregon wouldn't work well for us.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35948864)

Mmm. As an attempt at deflecting the question this is pretty poor. I’m having a hard time deciding whether you don’t have an answer, or whether perhaps you don’t even understand the question.

Let me try it another way. This isn’t Parliament and nobody is asking you to set out legislation. What this is, is a discussion forum. For a discussion to move forwards you have to be able to defend and build on the position you choose to take.

Now, your opinion is that euthanasia should be permitted, and that it is ok as long as it is ‘properly regulated’. Fine, if that’s your opinion. But you said that several pages back. The problem is, opinions are like assoles. Everybody has one. So what. If you’re interested in having an actual discussion, as opposed to repeatedly excreting your opinion every eight hours, then you have to develop an argument. One way of doing that is to define, in some way, what you mean by ‘properly regulated’.

I’m curious to know whether you’re capable of doing that, or whether, when challenged, your only recourse is to parody and denigrate what you think other people believe.

Over to you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948908)

I am quite capable of drafting some legislation, but don’t be silly.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948908)

I am quite capable of drafting some legislation, but don’t be silly. That would not amuse anyone on this forum, and frankly I would not waste my time.

Maybe I should ask you for a detailed medical plan to make the life of a dying person in pain so tolerable that their life is actually worth living.

No, I didn’t think so.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948908)

Maybe I should ask you for a detailed medical plan to make the life of a dying person in pain so tolerable that their life is actually worth living.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948908)

No, I didn’t think so.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948908)

I am quite capable of drafting some legislation, but don’t be silly.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35948988)

Having once had the privilege of taking part in that process and writing the guidance notes that went with it .... I doubt it very much. If you were ever a civil servant of sufficient experience, or a specialist contracted by the government to work on a particular project (as I was), I’m pretty sure you’d have made much of it, long before now.

Thanks for not answering the question though, you pretty much confirmed what I already suspected.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949021)

Well, maybe you should have explained better what you were asking me. It seems that you are not asking me to draft the legislation :D and I have set out my view of what this should be about, ie ‘The principle would be that the person has a terminal illness and suffering intense pain, providing no real quality of life.’ So what exactly are you expecting of me?

My guess is you are just picking hairs.

By the way, I have been involved in policy making and accompanying guidelines within the public service, so I’m not sure what point it is you are trying to make!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35949031)

"This isn’t Parliament and nobody is asking you to set out legislation" and "then you have to develop an argument. One way of doing that is to define, in some way, what you mean by ‘properly regulated’ seems to explain clearly what he was, and wasn’t, asking for...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949098)

I think most people who do not rely on pedantry when participating in a discussion know what 'properly regulated' means.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35949098)

I think most people who do not rely on pedantry when participating in a discussion know what 'properly regulated' means.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36186753)

And nobody is addressing the elephant in the room, which is that in all other cases attempted suicide, or even contemplating it (‘suicidal ideation’) is itself treated as a mental health issue, which in the case of assisted dying legislation. would disqualify someone from being granted it.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36186778)

Actually it's not always treated as a mental health issue. But I see the point you're making.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36186779)

I guess I can only speak for the way it’s dealt with in young people in Scotland, where your first port of call in either case is always CAMHS (Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services) - I have first hand experience of this, and can attest that there is no care pathway available to any young person in Scotland who has attempted or contemplated taking their own life that does not involve a referral to a mental health practitioner (usually a suitably qualified nurse in the first instance, and a psychiatrist soon after if required).

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36186782)

Well, they’ve gone for it. Not good.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36186798)

If we're talking about the last hours/ days of life and avoiding that being in agony, who can object? Dogs get better treatment.