Assisted suicide right or wrong

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The state has no right to force people who want to die to live.

We should have properly regulated ways to do this similar to how Dignitas do it.

http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?opt...mid=60&lang=en

Substantial checks and balances, and the person must be able to administer themselves the dose through a glass of water.

If done in this manner I've absolutely no issues with it, obviously there must be this level of substantial checks and balances.

Unfortunately the self administration means people have to choose to go earlier than perhaps they would like. Mentally they may wish to stay with their loved ones for longer until such time as they physically cannot cope any more, by which time it is too late to self administer. Tragic all ways round but at least there is an option.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Candy1567, my deep sympathies are with you over your loss, this is exactly what l am saying.

My wife and l suffered a tragic death some 10 years ago with our grandson, you do not get over it, and the sadness is that you see your loved one go through so much pain, and you cannot do ' assisted suicide'

As l said originally, it has to be that the family have to agree along with the patient and that the doctors agree that life cannot be continued due to the illness.

When l started this thread, l thought long and hard about the re-action that it would get, l have read so many articles on this in the media, and you often wonder, what right as politicians have in running our life's, if they won't subscribe the product to cure problems, and then you have people who are seriously ill, they must consider the person who is suffering and also the family, politicians must let them decide the final path without fear of what will happen afterwards.

[AdamD]

If someone in my family was stricken with a painful disease, or were going to suffer to the end, I would have no problem assisting them to die, if they wanted to choose their time of death.

I think it's every humans right to decide whether they wish to continue living or not, it's really no one elses business

I am in full favour of a way for those with terminal illness to be able to go out at a time and way of their choosing rather then making them suffer to the very end. I find the double standard in the UK disgusting to be honest if an animal is in a lot of pain with no way to live we have no problem putting them down and it is seen as the right thing to do. But when it comes to people we have to cling on to the very last second because to some idiots "life is precious", now life is precious a full active life that can be lived and enjoyed. Life in a bed not knowing who you are who those around you are or in so much pain that every minute seems like an eternity that is not precious that is torture.

WE really need to grow up as a country and deal with this issue in a way that is indicative of a so called developed society rather then making people suffer for the moral or ethical values of people not yet in that position.

[Kingofthedead4]

What we have to be careful of though is people who think they are becoming a burden to there family wanting to have assisted suicide. In the last 2 years I have gone from being a very active man to someone who can hardly walk, cant cook and has to rely on my wife for everything. The doctors have said I may never improve which is making me so depressed. I have not thought about taking my life but I am not everybody.

[AdamD]

I think the problem in general, is it's a "taboo" subject and the government doesn't want to touch on it, incase it offends religious groups A, B, C or D, or incase there's to much backlash from pro life groups

It's the same "taboo" subjects like gay marriage or women working in the armed forces etc, over time (I hope), it'll be accepted and made legal. (with proper procedures/checks in place, of course).

Reminds me of this Australian story - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-die-laws.html

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

I can't speak for Switzerland, but I'd be very surprised if you could come up with a credible example of depressed people being 'put down' in Holland.

The case involved the 1991 assisted suicide of a depressed woman named Hilly Bosscher. After Bosscher’s two sons died, she became obsessed about being buried between them. She approached the Dutch psychiatrist Boutdewijn Chabot, an assisted suicide advocate, seeking his help in killing herself. Chabot met with her on four occasions, but did not attempt treatment. Instead, believing that she would never improve, he assisted Bosscher’s suicide. The Dutch Supreme Court subsequently approved, finding, like the Swiss court after it, that the law cannot distinguish between suffering caused by physical illness and that caused by mental anguish.

http://www.christianliferesources.co...articleid=1238

[danielf]

Thanks for that. I tried to see if I could find any Dutch sources to that case, but I can find very little about that case.

However, what I can say is that it's certainly not the case that depressed people are routinely put down. One thing I did find is that in Belgium, in 2004 and 2005 combined, 4 people with chronic depression requested and were granted Euthanasia (as far as I can tell there were a total of 349 cases of Euthanasia in Belgium in 2004).

Personally, I'm not too sure what to think of these cases (though I'm sure doctors will not read lightly here). I can see the argument that physical and mental suffering can be indistinguishable, but it seems difficult to me to determine to what extent a depression will not improve.

Either way, it's certainly not the case that many people receive Euthanasia for depression, so it appears to me that allowing Euthanasia certainly isn't the 'thin end of the wedge' where depressed people are concerned.

[AdamD]

Originally Posted by danielf

but it seems difficult to me to determine to what extent a depression will not improve.

Speaking from past and present experience, I'd imagine it's the length of time the person has been depressed for and how many drugs/treatments that they've tried, which have been unsuccessful.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by AdamD

Speaking from past and present experience, I'd imagine it's the length of time the person has been depressed for and how many drugs/treatments that they've tried, which have been unsuccessful.

Yes, one would imagine that's the case, but since I don't know what the procedure is, I'm not going to say there's no problems whatsoever. What I have gathered is that Euthanasia based on mental suffering makes up a tiny proportion of all cases.

[AdamD]

Ah, quite right.
I didn't even know people could apply for such a thing for mental illnesses.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by AdamD

Ah, quite right.
I didn't even know people could apply for such a thing for mental illnesses.

Course you didn't, most people don't either, imo it's a prime example of why we shouldn't allow this genie out of the bottle, first of all it's passed and the strictest of safe guards are in place protecting all but the most terminally ill, then it's watered down a little so those in coma's can killed, then a bit more so the mentally ill can participate, then a little more so the elderly but healthyish can join in and years down the line it's open to all.

Another thing I'm sure most people don't know is that living wills are now legally being used to assist suicide in this country, was that what they were brought in and designed for, of course it isn't.

It is believed to be the first time a so-called "living will" has been used to legally aid someone's suicide.

Kerrie Wooltorton, who suffered depression over an inability to have children, was rushed to hospital by ambulance from her flat in Norwich after swallowing car anti-freeze fluid.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15396677

[candy1567]

but where do we draw the line who decides who is suffering the most, and wishes for it to end

those with a terminal illness to ease suffering, those with a mental health conditions, those with chronic pain, those with genetic conditions, those in a vegetable state, road traffic victims etc

who decides......and as i earlier pointed out those unfortunate children with life limiting illnessess, does their parents get to make that choice?

How do we measure wat "quality of life means"

Also there is usually time to prepare for assisted suicide with say terminal illness, genetic conditions, but wat about those who have accidents and then they dont have that choice to prepare or to write a living will

Juliexx

[AdamD]

Not sure if there should be a line drawn, as such, it's upto, or should be upto the individual if they wish to continue living or not

Who are we, or anyone, to deny someone that option?

The only thing society/the government should/can do, is offer help IF they choose to accept it (in the case of depression/mentally ill etc)

Mind you, I am depressed myself, so perhaps I'm a tad bias :P hehe