Assisted Suicide.

[Stuart]

Don't worry, I'm not considering it.

I'm just watching the excellent documentary from Terry Pratchett on this subject on BBC 2 and wondered about what people think.

Now, a polite request. People will have differing views on this, some guided by religion, and some by other beliefs. The request is that no one should tell anyone they are wrong. This is an emotive subject, and people are free to have their own opinion on it.

My opinion? IF someone is terminally ill and able to make the decision, are not considered a vulnerable member of society, they should, in conjunction with their family, be able to make the decision to die.

I don't think, however, that the family should be able to make the decision without the person, as I don't want families to get rid of ill relatives just because it's inconvenient.

[Kymmy]

Something the poll doesn't take into account is the "assisted" side to the argument.. It's all right choosing to die which the law doesn't prohibit against.. instead it's the assistance that is illegal in this country.

[Stuart]

Adjusted.

[Hom3r]

I'm in two mind, mainly science is changing rapidly.

But I think it's strange that we put sick animals down to stop them suffering, but people are made to suffer!!!

I think they should have the option. When people are towards the end of neurological conditions such as MS, ALS, etc then they face the prospect of waiting until the final part of their body goes. We have machines to keep them alive as various parts of their body fail. A lot seem to have to wait until they choke to death. A painless way out of that after the body has become useless seems a good idea.

However then you have the problem on where to draw the line. What is someone decides that their inability to walk was the final straw? What if they gave consent while able but entered a near vegetive state and wanted to withdraw that consent? What if family members, especially those with depression, feel they are a burden and feel pressured into killing themselves. Messy.

I am in favour of it but I can see why it's such a difficult issue.

[Wayfair]

Just watched it, my mind was racing between yes and no most of the time.... and I still don't know..

And being 42 my self, the same age as Andrew it sorta scared me..

Savage..

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Stuart

some guided by religion, and some by other beliefs.

It's a pity that you mentioned God as a basis for one of the answers

and it doesn't really tie in to the actual question of
Do you think people should have the right to assistance if they decide to die? anyway

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's a pity that you mentioned God as a basis for one of the answers

and it doesn't really tie in to the actual question of
Do you think people should have the right to assistance if they decide to die? anyway

why ? for some people a religious belief will play a very important role in their decision and others will vote according to their beliefs

[Caff]

I would like the choice to not be messed with too much and have the most peaceful ending possible. I would choose to have the same amount of resources, including personnel, funding, medication to 'let me go' with my full permission.
I might end up disappointed.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's a pity that you mentioned God as a basis for one of the answers

No, it's not. Whether you or I believe in God or not, a lot of people do believe in and follow an organised religion. Certain religions do express views about suicide very strongly, so people who believe in those religions may well base their views on what their religion says.

and it doesn't really tie in to the actual question of
Do you think people should have the right to assistance if they decide to die? anyway

Yes, it does. For the reason I have stated above.

[Graham M]

Think it needs an option: Yes; but only if the person is terminally ill for e.g.

[tosh mate]

Originally Posted by Graham M

Think it needs an option: Yes; but only if the person is terminally ill for e.g.

Yes and Their family understand that

I've voted

[TheDaddy]

I'm with Gordon Brown on this

Creating a legal “right” to die, no matter what safeguards were in place, would put unacceptable pressure on the sick and old, Mr Brown claims.

“The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may for example feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-suicide.html

We did go into this debate in some depth in this thread

[Lord Nikon]

equally the Hippocratic oath states to 'do no harm' - it could be easily, very easily argued that keeping someone alive in constant pain with no chance of reprieve from that is doing them untold emotional harm and that the kindest least harmful solution is to let them elect to end the suffering. We wouldn't let an animal go through that torment but we do it with people every day. DNR should NOT be the only means of escape from it.

[haydnwalker]

I think that people with degenerating conditions, in conjunction with their family should be able to make the decision to die when they wish. I think however, that the decision must be one thats constantly reviewed, and not for example one thats taken when the person finds out they have parkinsons/huntingtons etc when they are 30 and then isn't reviewed at 40/50 etc.

There should be a legal process in place for this to happen, and it shouldn't not happen just because the government thinks its not the right thing to do.

Someone with an awful (though not degenerating) condition once said to me "Why do I have to carry on living like this, when we put animals down for less". I kind of agree in a way, as Humans have to suffer until their last breath, whereas we might put a horse down if it has a broken leg.... I've never understood that!