A Duty To Die?

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Just for you...

The <insert country> approach
If a country wished to implement a process based on the Oregon approach, the following criteria must be fulfilled before a request for euthanasia could be granted:

patient must be resident in <insert country>
patient must be aged over 18
patient must make 2 oral and 1 written request for euthanasia
there must be at least 15 days between the first and the last request
patient must be terminally ill with a life expectancy of less than 6 months
this prognosis must be confirmed by a second consultant physician
both doctors must confirm that the patient is capable of making this decision
both doctors must confirm that the patient does not have medical condition that impairs their judgement
patient must self-administer the lethal medication

When the Oregon approach was undertaken in Oregon, the following was noted -

About 30% of patients who started the process died before it was completed. 19 patients in the period who were given access to lethal medication decided not to use it. One survey showed that 45% of patients who were given good palliative care changed their mind about euthanasia.

Another reason for the low take-up was the difficulty of finding a doctor who go along with the request: The Oregon Health Division reported that only a fifth of physicians of control patients dying of similar terminal illnesses would have prescribed a lethal medication if asked.

That makes a lot more sense.

However, more seriously:

patient must self-administer the lethal medication

Seems like a flaw considering people who've lost their motor functions due to conditions such as ALS are often the cases people bring up as examples of where such a policy should exist.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

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

Pretty bold claim unless you are involved in it already.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

You appear to have mis-read Chris's email - he specifically didn't ask you to draft/set out legislation, only to define what you meant by "properly regulated".

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

.. or maybe you could answer the question

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, I didn’t think so.

So it seems, your attempt to avoid [again] was obvious even to me.

Sadly we have here someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may not ever be a simple answer and therefore keeps repeating their case without ever offering any further insight.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Well, maybe you should have explained better what you were asking me. It seems that you are not asking me to draft the legislation 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 OLD BOY

Well, maybe you should have explained better what you were asking me. It seems that you are not asking me to draft the legislation 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!

"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...

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"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...

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

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

You appeared to have mis-spelled ‘clarity’...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

In this case, it’s a placeholder that means, roughly, “insert argument here”...

[TheDaddy]

The exact slippery slope with this I feared all along, it's okay though as it won't happen here if brought in, we are so much better than the Dutch after all

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...hs-netherlands

[TheDaddy]

Heard on the radio the other day that Matt Hancock has asked the UK statistician for details of the number of people committing suicide who are terminally ill. It came after details reached him of a 19 year old man with terminal oesophagus cancer was found hung in a garage.

I began to change my stance after hearing this tragic story, then the talking heads came on giving their opinion and obviously they couldn't use Holland or Switzerland as an example to use here because the mentally ill and tired of life are routinely terminated there so they chose to base Oregon as the basis of how it could work in the UK citing since the law was passed there in 1997 there hasn't been a single case of it being abused and take up has been low, this might be okay I began thinking to myself, with rock hard safe guards in place perhaps we should adopt it and after a while it became clear that whilst it wasn't being abused a significant number had put on their paperwork that their reason for seeking assisted death was so they didn't become a burden on their families so I was back ro square one as I personally don't think this good enough a reason.