Cable Forum - View Single Post

KymC · 15-06-2011, 11:05

I watched the documentary and was very moved by it. Peter Smedley was going to die anyway as a result of having MND. But by choosing when he should die meant that he was able to avoid the increased pain and suffering that lay ahead of him coupled with the indignity of it. This way he was able to have a dignified death with his wife close by and his wife was spared the pain of watching him suffer later.

It is obvious by that paragraph that I think assisted suicide should be legalised in this country. I do not think that a person should be forced to endure pain and suffering if it is known, unequivocally, that there will be no chance of recovery.

In the case of Anthony Bland, who was injured in the Hillsborough disaster and as a result was left with a condition of persistent vegetative state (PVS), it was decided that as he was beyond recovery, life-sustaining treatment should be stopped. Anthony did not and could not make this decision, as he had no awareness. It was made for him by those treating him and by his family. The decision was made with the aim of letting Anthony end his life and die peacefully, with dignity and with as little pain as possible.

Yet, in contrast, in the case of Diane Pretty, who had Motor Neurons Disease (MND) which we know has no cure and results in death, but not before a degree of pain, suffering and indignity, was informed by the courts that her husband could not assist in her suicide without the consequence of prosecution. (Diane Pretty was by this time physically unable to take her own life due to the progression of the MND).

Here, a woman who is of sound mind and intellect, making a choice to have help dying for reasons that the courts deemed valid in the case of Bland, even though it wasn’t he himself that made the choice, is refused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2600923.stm

Obviously, there would have to be many checks and balances in place in order to protect the vulnerable. The person wishing to die must be terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, be of sound mind, not being coerced etc. The DPP’s interim policy has some points on it, which could be incorporated in to the checks and balance procedures should assisted suicide be legalised.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/journals/...ion/index.html

There is always the fear of systems being abused, but that is what the checks and balances would be for. For something like this to be legalised, procedures would have to exhaustive.

I believe that every individual should have the right and freedom to make the choice and to be assisted with that choice if necessary. It is wholly unfair that an able bodied person of sound mind can make that choice and follow through on it but that someone who is physically unable but still sound of mind can make the same choice but is discriminated against in being able to follow through because they require assistance.

15-06-2011, 11:05	#57
KymC Inactive Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Leicester Posts: 24	Re: Assisted Suicide. I watched the documentary and was very moved by it. Peter Smedley was going to die anyway as a result of having MND. But by choosing when he should die meant that he was able to avoid the increased pain and suffering that lay ahead of him coupled with the indignity of it. This way he was able to have a dignified death with his wife close by and his wife was spared the pain of watching him suffer later. It is obvious by that paragraph that I think assisted suicide should be legalised in this country. I do not think that a person should be forced to endure pain and suffering if it is known, unequivocally, that there will be no chance of recovery. In the case of Anthony Bland, who was injured in the Hillsborough disaster and as a result was left with a condition of persistent vegetative state (PVS), it was decided that as he was beyond recovery, life-sustaining treatment should be stopped. Anthony did not and could not make this decision, as he had no awareness. It was made for him by those treating him and by his family. The decision was made with the aim of letting Anthony end his life and die peacefully, with dignity and with as little pain as possible. Yet, in contrast, in the case of Diane Pretty, who had Motor Neurons Disease (MND) which we know has no cure and results in death, but not before a degree of pain, suffering and indignity, was informed by the courts that her husband could not assist in her suicide without the consequence of prosecution. (Diane Pretty was by this time physically unable to take her own life due to the progression of the MND). Here, a woman who is of sound mind and intellect, making a choice to have help dying for reasons that the courts deemed valid in the case of Bland, even though it wasn’t he himself that made the choice, is refused. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2600923.stm Obviously, there would have to be many checks and balances in place in order to protect the vulnerable. The person wishing to die must be terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, be of sound mind, not being coerced etc. The DPP’s interim policy has some points on it, which could be incorporated in to the checks and balance procedures should assisted suicide be legalised. http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/journals/...ion/index.html There is always the fear of systems being abused, but that is what the checks and balances would be for. For something like this to be legalised, procedures would have to exhaustive. I believe that every individual should have the right and freedom to make the choice and to be assisted with that choice if necessary. It is wholly unfair that an able bodied person of sound mind can make that choice and follow through on it but that someone who is physically unable but still sound of mind can make the same choice but is discriminated against in being able to follow through because they require assistance.