A Duty To Die?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

nice dan very nice, I would've expected better of you. The experts like doctors and police chiefs have been explicit in their warnings on this and I happen to agree with them. The circumstances of individuals don't out weigh what's right for society as a whole imo, no matter how much sympathy you have for their plight.

Erm ok. I see how that might have come across wrong. I apologise. What I meant to put across is that there are real people out there that are suffering in real life. It just strikes me as odd to deny these people what they want, on the off-chance that it might be abused in the future, when there is very little indication that it's being abused at present in countries that have legislated for it.

Surely, it must be possible to come up with a system with sufficient safeguards that will put the minds of those who are concerned about abuse at ease?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And time and again in this thread there are examples of prosecution being deemed not in the public interest or suspended sentence being appropriate, the balance imho is right

Well if this is the case then we already have circumstances in which we deem it acceptable to allow for assisted suicide. Why not make these enshrined in law so that families don't have the stress and the CPS do not have the difficulty in making calls for what is in the public interest or not. To say 'we might prosecute, we might not' is clearly already messy. It's also clear that many patients don't have confidence in such a system, hence them taking their right to die case to court.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Erm ok. I see how that might have come across wrong. I apologise. What I meant to put across is that there are real people out there that are suffering in real life. It just strikes me as odd to deny these people what they want, on the off-chance that it might be abused in the future, when there is very little indication that it's being abused at present in countries that have legislated for it.

Surely, it must be possible to come up with a system with sufficient safeguards that will put the minds of those who are concerned about abuse at ease?

I believe we have that system in place

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...icide-law.html

And my own view has changed over the years from being firmly against assisted suicide to not prosecuting in extreme cases mainly due to some of the stories you read about peoples suffering. What we don't want though and what I fear could happen is mentioned in the last few paragraphs of this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...de-clinic.html

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I believe we have that system in place

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...icide-law.html

And my own view has changed over the years from being firmly against assisted suicide to not prosecuting in extreme cases mainly due to some of the stories you read about peoples suffering. What we don't want though and what I fear could happen is mentioned in the last few paragraphs of this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...de-clinic.html

If I understand correctly, that simply means that those who help people travel to Switzerland will not be prosecuted if they don't gain from it. It still remains illegal to perform Euthanasia in the UK, and presumably it will be prosecuted.

The system I have in mind, would be to have medically qualified people (preferably several) should be involved, to judge people's condition and suffering. I'd like to keep the family far away in the decision and actual procedure. Having a panel of GPs involved should also stop cases like the one in the DM (though that should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is the DM).

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

If I understand correctly, that simply means that those who help people travel to Switzerland will not be prosecuted if they don't gain from it. It still remains illegal to perform Euthanasia in the UK, and presumably it will be prosecuted.

The system I have in mind, would be to have medically qualified people (preferably several) should be involved, to judge people's condition and suffering. I'd like to keep the family far away in the decision and actual procedure. Having a panel of GPs involved should also stop cases like the one in the DM (though that should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is the DM).

I took it to mean all cases, iirc focus in the article was placed on a disabled woman who wanted to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he took her to.Switzerland, here's a slightly better article and if it doesn't include cases in this country I think it probably should.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8536231.stm

I wouldn't be in favour of your system, its to.regulated, personally I don't want this to become so normal committees are set up, if we have this imo it has to be so rare it is news, perhaps Damien is right and it does need to be debated but I just have no faith in our politicians to undertake such an important issue.

[danielf]

The article isn't very clear, but I think the guidelines relate to people helping others to travel abroad only. If not, why did Tony Nicklinson end up starving himself? If those guidelines covered the UK and active help, there would have been no reason for Tony Nicklinson to go to court,

I'm a little surprised you find my system too regulated. Surely, it needs to be properly regulated if you want to avoid abuse?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm a little surprised you find my system too regulated. Surely, it needs to be properly regulated if you want to avoid abuse?

Personally I would never want this normalised enough to warrant committees, I think as long as the police investigate sensitively each case it'll be fine.

Terry Pratchett wrote an interesting article (imho) in yesterday's Times (behind a paywall).

So step forward Anna Soubry, the new Health Minister, who has spoken of the viability of assisted dying here. In a very British way she was talking about a discussion. She was not saying “let’s have it here and now”, just “let us take it seriously”, given the number of people from the UK who make their way to Dignitas for the surcease denied to them in Britain.

This sounds promising; a politician talking about, well, talking. But the mere suggestion that there might be discussion doesn’t sit well with some. Ms Soubry has driven right into a hailstorm of abuse from the likes of Nadine Dorries MP and Melanie Phillips, of the Daily Mail. They’ve got rather shrill. Perhaps sensing, correctly, that we are edging ever closer to change.

And now there are the remarks of Baroness Hollins, the President of the British Medical Association, saying that the medical establishment does not want to allow this.
Strange, isn’t it? Because I know that there are a number of medics who would look kindly on assisted dying for the UK if all the legal and other safeguards were put in place. Never trust a doctor telling you what doctors think. They are simply telling you what they think. There are younger doctors, especially, who would have an open mind. And all the time, circling around all this, are the usual suspects declaring that assisted dying is bound to lead to abuses.

Earlier this year a commission of the great and the good was set up by myself and another gentleman of means, to look at practices in other countries where assisted dying is commonplace and to report on how it could be evolved to suit Britain.
It looked for abuses — there were none. The countries that allow assisted dying are careful democracies, just like us. It’s not a free for all. There are rules, rules everywhere. Some time ago I set out with Rob, my assistant, to track down every rumour of assisted dying abuse on the planet and I have to say that when electronically cornered, people making allegations of abuse lamely said that it was on the internet. I think everything on the internet is true, don’t you?

We had some fun talking to the FBI about a pernicious rumour involving two doctors; once again the truth was that absolutely nothing illegal had been done or contemplated. Nevertheless, those irrevocably against anything like assisted dying will continue to muddy the waters and so there will continue to be more tragedies like that of Mr Nicklinson and more people trailing off to Dignitas to the embarrassment of the Swiss and the shame of Britain.

Why is it that opponents of change don’t want to engage with concrete evidence that answers their concerns? Such evidence was published in July in The Lancet, looking at the state of the law in the Netherlands. Far from there being an increase in ending life without an explicit request since the law changed, it has, in fact, decreased.

Evidence of a slippery slope and relaxing of practice is not supported by the evidence from the Netherlands or from anywhere else where the law is more compassionate.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Personally I would never want this normalised enough to warrant committees, I think as long as the police investigate sensitively each case it'll be fine.

Well, I disagree. I'd like to see it properly legislated for with transparent procedures in place so it it clear for all to see what's happening and what is and is not allowed. Not some grey area where it's unclear in what circumstance people will and will not be prosecuted.

[TheDaddy]

Shocking, the pathway to death

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-family.html

[TheDaddy]

Can't think of many things worse than being deaf and blind but a reason to euthanise two otherwise healthy 45 year olds, I don't think so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ble-again.html

I would agree with you, but the twins decided to undertake the process.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Can't think of many things worse than being deaf and blind but a reason to euthanise two otherwise healthy 45 year olds, I don't think so.

No it's not but it was their choice .If that was in this country they would have probably tried to commit suicide ,possibly failed or possibly one died and one lived ,at least there it was in a controlled environment

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it's not but it was their choice .If that was in this country they would have probably tried to commit suicide ,possibly failed or possibly one died and one lived ,at least there it was in a controlled environment

Yes and they shouldn't have been given a choice, the unbearable pain clearly isn't aimed at the prospect of never seeing someone again.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yes and they shouldn't have been given a choice, the unbearable pain clearly isn't aimed at the prospect of never seeing someone again.

I don't know what the restrictions if any are ,can you just rock up to the docs and ask to be put down in Belgium or are there restrictions stipulating the circumstances and conditions when this would be allowed